THE IRISH LAND BILL.
[To THE EDITOR OP TER "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—As we say in Ireland, " you never said a truer word" than when you told your readers in the Spectator of May 9th that the introduction of this Bill creates a heavy responsi- bility for the whole nation. To begin with, its successful working out will turn a large proportion of Irish property into the proverbial "rolling stones," which may be a good thing for such unproducing classes as solicitors and stock- brokers, but which is likely to have very serious results for the poor people whose property is being " rolled," as well as for their numerous agents and underlings, who are in many cases too old now to learn a new profession. And many of the stones are likely to roll out of this country altogether, which can scarcely be to its advantage. A graver difficulty seems to be the positive injustice which it appears likely to inflict upon the large minority of Irish taxpayers who are neither landlords nor tenants ; and this includes the whole labouring class, who have been damaged perhaps more than any others by your ruthless injuries to our manufactures in the dismal old times when we had no representatives in the Imperial Parliament to fight for us, and yet who are now expected to contribute something from their own little moneys to make up the huge presents from the State which are to make the other two classes happy. Surely, as far as they are concerned, this is only a continuance of the old injustices which have made all the misery of the relations between the two islands. Every sensible working man should see that the great Act of 1881 gave the Irish tenant everything that was justly due to him, by securing him "fair rents, free sale, and fixity of tenure." The miseries of the "dual ownership" it created fell almost entirely upon the landlords ; and I am sure you, Sir, are fair enough to see that they could all have been got rid of by the simple plan of turning the fair rent, once fixed in a Land Court., into a rent for ever, that should only vary afterwards automatically, according to the prices of produce and labour. At p. 341 of VoL I. of Mill's "Political Economy" (fourth edition) he shows us clearly that the peasant-proprietor of a farm subject to a fixed rent is to all reasonable intents and purposes a peasant-proprietor with all the advantages of that position. But in common justice, for the granting of every such final lease-for-ever, the landlord should have been paid a small fine by the State in whose interest it was done. To such plain justice as that no taxpayer could fairly object. But instead of taking this simple course, a new principle of making partial presents here and there under the name of purchases was introduced ; and as naturally enough these petted " purchasers" paid their rents, its so-called " success " has been made the great argument for introducing this new and huge revolutionary Bill. But no doubt in the opinion of very many thoughtful people besides Sir Alexander Miller in the April Nineteenth Century, and "An Old Whig" in the March Fortnightly, whose articles I have read, and Judge O'Connor Morris, whose article in the May Nineteenth Century I have not read, Lord Ashbourne's Act was anything but a success. On the contrary, the inequalities it has caused have supplied Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Russell with their one reasonable argu- ment for their most unjust agitations. Getting the large and ever-increasing sums they do get for their " goodwills " or tenants' interests, the farmers of Ireland have now no real grievances as tenants. Any fair man who really examines their position must see this plainly. But as Irishmen we all may have very great grievances in money matters to complain of ; and since these State-aided purchases have been introduced, and the defeat of this plainly well-intending Bill would, as you say, cause great disappointment, perhaps you may find room for some suggestions which might tend to take away much of its injustice. These might begin with the assertions that the State owes in common justice a good deal of money to the Irish landlords, with whom it has broken its contracts, ex- pressed (in the Encumbered Estates Court) and implied (by
the old common law of the land), in the most flagrant way; and that although it now owes nothing to the tenants, to whom
it has already done full justice, it would like to make them, by the help of its credit, owners-in-fee in due time and with- out any expense to themselves. Might not, then, both these objects be gained and this Bill made really a final one, in spite of the prophecies of Sir Edward Carson, if the tenants who could not get their landlord to sell to them were en- titled to force him to give them John Stuart Mill's leases-for. ever, with fair rents, which should vary (whenever they pre- ferred this arrangement to a fixed rent) automatically with the prices of produce in their immediate neighbourhoods, and of labour in the United Kingdom generally, always sup- posing that the State was not wise enough to be foresting barren hills in those immediate neighbourhoods, in which case their interests should be guarded by special provisos ? How could any reasonable tenant object to such a tenure ? But if you are very anxious for fee-simple, why, you could give one year's purchase more in "bonus" to the landlord who would sell than to the landlord who would not. But in my opinion if you want to make us all really contented by doing real justice all round, some of the Imperial moneys thus saved from the farmers should go towards State-aided insurances for old age for thrifty workmen. And here it may be perhaps cynically remarked that while there may be some doubt as to whether paying an additional £2,000,000 a year of tribute to " the predominant partner " in the way of rent would make the farmers of Ireland more loyal in the case of an unfortunate war, there cannot be the slightest doubt but that the man who trusted his hard shillings to the State to be repaid in his old age would stand by her " through thick and thin."—I am,
Sir, &c., WALTER SWEETMAN. [We do not agree, but we gladly print our correspondent's letter, as we desire to hear both sides. We cannot, however, open our columns to a general discussion of the land question. —ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
