In considering the remedies to be applied, three conclusions forced
themselves on the commissioners: that the original grants were
improvident and ought never to have been sanctioned; that all the grants
were liable to forfeiture for breach of the conditions with respect to
settlement, and might have been justly escheated; and that all the
grants might have been practically annulled by the enforcement of
quitrents, and the lands seized and sold by the Crown, at various times,
without the slightest impeachment of its honor. But whilst this opinion
was firmly held, still, the Sovereign having repeatedly confirmed the
original grants, it was impossible to treat the grantees in any other
manner than as the lawful possessors of the soil.
Assuming, then, the sufficiency of the original grants, and the binding
authority of the leases, the commissioners were clearly of opinion that
the leasehold tenure should be converted into freehold. It was, they
said, equally the interest of the imperial and local governments that
this should be done, that agrarian questions should be swept from the
field of controversy, that Her Majesty’s ministers might be no longer
assailed by remonstrance and complaint, and that the public men in the
island might turn their attention to the development of its resources.
Assuming, therefore, that a compulsory compromise was inevitable, the
question arose: upon what terms should the proprietors be compelled to
sell, and the tenants be at liberty to purchase?
In answer to this important question, the commissioners awarded that
tenants who tendered twenty years’ purchase to their landlords, in cash,
should be entitled to a discount of ten percent., and a deed conveying
the fee-simple of their farms. Where the tenant preferred to pay by
instalments, he should have that privilege; but the landlord would not
be bound to accept a less sum than ten pounds at any time; nor should
the tenant have a longer time than ten years to liquidate the debt. The
tenants whose lands were not worth twenty years’ purchase, and who
therefore declined to pay that amount, might tender to their landlords
what they considered the value of their farms. If the landlord declined
to accept the amount offered, the value should be adjusted by
arbitration. If the sum tendered was increased by the award, the tenant
was to pay the expenses; if it was not, they should be paid by the
landlord. It was provided that the rent should be reduced in proportion
to the instalments paid; but no credit should be given for any such
instalments until the three years arrears allowed by the commissioners’
award were paid, nor while any rent accruing after the adjustment of the
value of the farm remained due. Proprietors who held not more than
fifteen thousand acres, or such as desired to hold particular lands to
that extent, were not to be compelled to part with such lands under the
award. Leases under a term of less than forty years were not affected by
the award.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account