LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE ARREARS QUESTION.

[To THE Eorroa OF THE "SPECTATOR."] you permit an Irish Unionist to support, in a few words, the position which you have taken up in respect of the arrears question, and to point out that the equity claimed for the Parnellite proposal is to a very large extent disposed of by the fact that, in the great majority of cases, the reductions given by the Land Courts have been made applicable to arrears by the voluntary system of abatements in operation for several years past P Very numerous instances could be given of the reductions of rent made by the Courts being less than the abatement previously given of his own accord by the landlord.

Mr. A. M. Sullivan has given, in his "New Ireland," most emphatic testimony as to the splendid self-denial of the Irish landlords at a period of greater strain, and, as respects the defensive position of the Irish tenantry, of far greater weak- ness than the present. I refer to p. 63 of his eighth edition. This generous admission by a not too friendly critic, of the landlords' noble self-sacrifice on the altar of duty in the days of the famine, appears to persons resident in Ireland to apply (in all things except the references to famine and fever) to the great body of the Irish landlords at the present time. The extremity is not so great. The spirit in which it is being met is the same.

But, if I may judge by the letter of Mr. Charles H. Fox, in the Spectator of April 14th, to many Liberal Unionists it appears to be an act of simple justice to make a compulsory demand upon the landlords to abate arrears of rent, leaving all other creditors to exact in full measure the amount of their debts. But I would urge upon the notice of those who lean towards this view, that which was a recognised postulate up to recent years among tenants, shopkeepers, and bankers alike—viz., that the farm being the security, that is the very foundation, upon which all the creditors rest for the payment of their loans—the first duty of the tenant was to keep himself safe in possession of his land,—in other words, to keep his rent paid. But the policy of repeated Arrears Acts—especially such a one as that now proposed, which, unlike its predecessor, con- tains no provision for any payment whatever by the State-- has at its root the very opposite of this axiom,—namely, that all obligations are sacred except rent. If so great a sacrifice of first principles is demanded, one may fairly inquire, Ceti Immo ?

Will abatements, if made retrospective, really rescue the tenants from their embarrassments P In reply to this question,

allow me to quote from the evidence of Mr. James Hack Tuke, before the Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1882 [Question 7,722] :—" At the present moment, as I found

in Clif den, the shopkeepers who are the Guardians are bitterly

opposed to emigration I have sometimes been arguing with a shopkeeper who perhaps has been opposing some men going out, and I have been saying,—' How is it possible for you to get anything out of that man who is 240 in debt to you, and 230 or 240 in debt for rent P How is it possible, when the whole of that man's belongings, as you know perfectly well, is not worth 210 or 215, for you to do so ? ' I have heard him say,--' I can get a shilling out of him, and I would rather he would remain here in his poverty than that he should go."

Professor Baldwin, before the Richmond Commission in 1880 [No. 2,924], said :—" I have got clear evidence that there are gombeen usurers in the West of Ireland who charge over 100 per cent."

If no relief is granted from the oppression of such debts as Mr. Take and Professor Baldwin describe, the latter end of the poor tenant will be no better than the first. For his other debts would still sink him irrecoverably ; and they will sink thousands, even if they pay no rent or arrears whatever.

That a Court has not pronounced " gombeen " usury unjust, is a technical quibble, and it evades the point,—i.e., whether or not it is de facto unjust, which is what concerns us. If the Act is passed, it will very soon be pronounced so, as the evidence of Mr. Take and others clearly proves.

By all means, then, if we are to have a further attack upon rent, let a corresponding sacrifice of other debts run pan i pa,ssu with it. And, after all, the rent question will still remain unsettled ; nay, this legislation will tend to greater unrest.

What is wanted for Ireland is a permanent adaptation of rent to produce, an automatic system, which, without Land.

Courts or valuations, will lower or raise the rent as produce in

quantity and price falls or rises. Difficulties of detail there may be in formulating such a scheme, but I decline to believe

that the effort would too severely tax the abilities of the powerful economists and financiers whose services the Govern- ment can at present command. A Department and Minister of Agriculture will carry the Act into effect.—I am, Sir, &c.,