The Pail Mall Gazette says that to turn the Irish
landlord into the mere owner of a rent-charge would be confiscation. Of course it would, without fair compensation for possible increase of value ; but that granted, what moral right has the owner of land to more than he would get from letting anything else, say, a house or machinery, or money ? His right of dictating how his tenant shall vote or act in any way is pure oppression, and so is his claim to social deference on account of his landlordism, and what else would he lose ? Supposing the most extreme reform adopted, a perpetual settlement, the landlord would be on his estate just what the Duke of Portland is on his London property, and where is the hardship of that position ? While the leases run the Duke has no " power " except to exact his rent, but his position is none the worse for that. In many respects, the Irish landlord would be much better off than he is, for he would get his money to the day, and he would not get shot.
