THE IRISH LAND BILL: AN APPEAL.
WE sincerely trust that the rumours in regard to the fate of the Irish Land Bill are unfounded. According to the Lobby correspondent of the Times "the outlook of the Irish Land Bill does not improve." Neither the landlords nor the Nationalists, he tells us, wish to incur the discredit of killing the measure, "but both parties are dissatisfied with the Bill as it stands, and concessions by the Government, to whichever side they may be made, will increase the hostility of the other section." He adds that," all things considered, there is a growing belief that the scheme will have to be dropped." We can easily believe that the situation as regards the Irish landlords and the Nationalists is as represented here, but that is in no sense a reason for the Government dropping the Bill. They will, indeed, be making a capital blunder if they let their measure be killed,—their first real blunder this Session, for, as we show elsewhere, all the talk about the deadly wounds they have received over the Education Bill, the Indian Troops Resolution, and the Rating Bill, is merely the babble of the political auction- room and may be safely disregarded. There is a great deal of Opposition noise, but all the present cock-a- doodling will be forgotten in six weeks. The effect of a failure to pass the Irish Land Bill will be very different. The Opposition will no doubt be unable to make any capital out of the event, and, in all probability, not a word of condemnation will be heard from the Gladstonian Press. The Bill's demise, if it takes place, will apparently be almost unnoticed, but the Cabinet must not be deceived by the fact that they will seemingly lose no popularity by its decease. In spite of the absence of any shouts of triumph from their opponents, they will be doing a real injury to the Unionist cause, and so to them- selves. We desire, then, to appeal to Mr. Balfour and his colleagues, in the strongest and most earnest manner at our command, not to drop the Bill. We appeal to them not only in the interests of Ireland, but of the party as a whole,—in the interests, that is, of the Unionist cause of which they are the guardians. It is their business to consider not whether the Bill is wanted by the Irish landlords, or by the Nationalists, but whether it is in the interests of Ireland, whether it is good for Ireland, and whether it will help the solution of the Irish land problem. If they consider that it is good for Ireland, and will help to restore peace to Ireland, and that they do so consider it there is ample evidence, then most assuredly it is their duty to carry it through in spite of the lukewarmness or hostility of the Parlia- mentary groups which claim to be specially concerned with the measure. The fact that the Bill has no section in the House of Commons which backs it up eagerly is no reason for its abandonment. It, like so many other measures capable of good results for Ireland, must be carried through on its merits, and not with an eye to the con- ciliation of this or that faction or interest.
If the reasons why the Bill is liked neither by the land- lord party in the House nor by the Nationalists are examined at close quarters they will be found to provide arguments not for dropping the measure but rather for carrying it into operation. The landlords who oppose the Bill—and remember they are by no means all the land. lords but only a majority of them—do so in no small measure because they believe that the Bill will greatly increase the purchasing of land by the farmers, and will, as they say, prove another step in the direction of com- pulsory purchase. But the Irish landlords above all things dread the purchase of their estates by the tenants. Prompted by their agents and lawyers they believe that purchase means for them a terrible reduction of income. They argue that even if they get twenty years' purchase they will suffer a reduction of half their incomes. Twenty years' purchase means that the land was yielding them 5 per cent. But when they get the purchase-money they allege that they must put it into 2-1 per cent. invest- ments. Therefore, they say, purchase means a loss of half their incomes, and must be resisted in every shape or form,—as much when it is nominally voluntary as when it assumes a clearly compulsory form. No doubt there is some truth in this argument, but there is also a good deal of exaggeration. The security of Irish land is not so magnificent that the only alternative to it as an invest- ment is 2i per cent. Consols. Again, there are outgoings even on Irish estates. Arrears of rent and payments to agents are, it should be remembered, items which are not deducted from investments in the funds. But be this as it may, and even if the case of the expropriated landlords is as bard as is made out, the opposition of the landlords ought not to be allowed to prevail. It has in effect been decided by the Unionist party that the only solution of the muddle begun in 1881 is to gradually abolish dual ownership in Ireland, and replace it by peasant-pro- prietary. This is the only way out of the labyrinth. Though the landlords may not realise the fact, it is also the way of safety for them. Unless a settlement of this kind is arrived at, far worse things will befall them than even compulsory purchase. In a word, the landlords, not unnaturally, are like a patient who shrinks from the use of the knife in a necessary but painful operation. But that shrinking is not a ground for giving up the operation. It is of course no subject for reproaches, but still less is it an argument for doing nothing. Fighting the Bill behind the backs of the landlords, are, it is said, though we will not vouch for the fact, other interests, and interests much less worthy of consideration. It is alleged that a section of the lawyers on both sides dislike the Bill on selfish grounds, while it is said that the officials who administer the estates in the Encumbered Estates Court greatly dislike the clauses which will free many thousands of acres of land from the worst form of mortmain known to the world,—the "dead hand" of an Official Receiver. In any case, the Government will be most unwise to yield to the landlord opposition to the Bill as a whole. They will, of course, give the landlords' demands full consideration in Committee, but that is a very different thing from aban- doning the Bill at their bidding. The Cabinet, since it con- tains Mr. Balfour, knows that it is absolutely necessary to amend the Land Bill of 1881 in several particulars, and to go through with the policy of purchase. But no pre- judice shown to the Bill by the landlords can alter this necessity, or make it in accordance with the interests of Ireland or, indeed, of the United Kingdom to drop the Bill. The hostility shown by the Nationalists to the Bill is a still weaker reason for its abandonment. The real reason why the Nationalists want to see the Bill killed is because they dread its effect in pacifying Ireland. Unless the Nationalist cause is to die a natural death next winter there must be an agitation ; and how can there be an agitation without a grievance ? But at present grievances are lamentably short in Ireland. It happens, therefore, that the Nationalists are looking eagerly for a grievance. Now if the Irish Bill is dropped they will have an excellent grievance ready to their hand. Their hostility, then, and unwillingness to help on the Bill is an extraordinarily strong argument for carrying it through at all costs. If it becomes law, a very severe blow indeed will have been dealt at the forces of unrest in Ireland.
Perhaps, however, the strongest argument of all in favour of passing the Bill at once, is that it will enable the Government to let Ireland know that, for another five years at any rate, it will be useless to ask for fresh agrarian changes. But if the Bill is dropped it will be impossible to take this line, and the Irish people will be told that their only way of getting a new Land Bill will be to start another agitation. It is one of the great advantages of the present Bill that it was not produced in answer to a wild and vehement outside agitation, but was the result of care and statesmanship rather than of timid compromises with clamour. The Govern- ment, then, have a great opportunity for doing a piece of necessary work in Ireland, and doing it at the right time. If they are wise they will do it and not fear the consequences. They will probably find, when once they have got their Bill into Committee, that the landlords are not so unreasonable in deed as in word, while it is pretty certain that the Nationalists will be forced by public opinion in Ireland not to destroy the Bill. Yet one more reason why the Government should pass the Irish Land Bill now and at once. If they fail to do so the Bill must reappear next Session. But the effect of this ill-starred rentanet will be to destroy next Session. Time will increase the virulence of opposition on both sides, and it is by no means impossible that a Bill which can now be passed with comparative ease will next year take half the Session. But this will mean the laying waste of the Cabinet's legislative programme for next year. In their own more selfish interests, as well as on wider public grounds, we implore the Cabinet not to abandon the Irish Land Bill. To persevere in it will be to accom- plish a great and useful work. To drop it because the landlords frown and the Nationalists are willing to wound, though afraid to strike, will be a deadly injury to the Unionist cause. As we have said, the injury will not perhaps be immediate or apparent, but it will be none the less real. Depend upon it, if the Cabinet drops the Irish Land Bill the crack will have opened which will end by splitting the vase.
Previous page
