17
SECTION VII.
The Act of 1870.
The justification for the Act of 1870 was the same as for the Act of 1881, which followed it. The tenant had made all the improvements on the land, and yet had no legal property in them. He was liable to capricious eviction from a holding, the value of which was often mainly due to his labour, and he was subject to arbitrary increases of rent.
The Act of 1870 did three things:—(1) It gave compensation for disturbance; (2) compensation for improvements; and (3) it legalised the Ulster Tenant Right Custom.
Compensation for Disturbance.
I. Compensation for disturbance was strictly limited to such loss as "the Court shall find" to have been sustained by the tenant when obliged to quit the holding by the action of the landlord. It was held that the higher the landlord raised the rent the smaller was the loss and the compensation. The amount of compensation could in no case exceed £250, and was limited to tenancies created after the passing of the Act. No compensation was to be given to tenants who had sub-let or sub-divided their holdings without the consent, in writing of the landlord; or to any tenant under a lease for thirty-one years or upwards; and, from the amount awarded, the landlord had a right of deduction for deterioration, etc.
Compensation for Improvements.
II. The right to compensation for his improvements to be awarded to a tenant when quitting his holding was subject to so large a variety of exceptions as greatly to limit the number of tenants able to take advantage of the provision.
Even when compensation was awarded, the landlord could deduct from the amount for rates and taxes and for the loss due to the non-observance of express or implied covenants or agreements, and the Court in awarding compensation was required, in reduction of the claim of the tenant, to take into consideration the time during which the tenant may have enjoyed the advantages of such improvements, and any other benefits he may have had.
Ulster Custom.
III. The legalisation of the Ulster Custom did not prevent the landlord from increasing the rent from time to time so as almost to destroy the tenant's interest. The Act did not define the custom and the onus lay on the tenant of establishing that the particular usage under which he held was within it.
