LETTERS TO ME EDITOR.
THE DEADLOCK IN IRISH LAND.
rTo TIM EDITOR OP TRH " SPECTATOR."1 SIE,—May an Irish auctioneer, whose hammer—not that of Thor—has knocked down a considerable amount of tenant-right property, state his views on Mr. Trevelyan's Land Purchase Bill ?
Let me take one retrospective glance. The Land Act of 1870 gave the tenant who bought the fee-simple of his holding two- thirds of the purchase-money at 5 per cent. interest, repayable in thirty-five years. This Bright boon was inoperative. To make it operative, the Land Act of 1881 increased the two- thirds of the purchase-money to three-fourths, the rate of interest and period of repayment remaining intact. With what result ? The fee-simple is as unsaleable now as prior to the passing of the Land Law Act.
Mr. Tre elyan's Bill is drawn on a wrong basis. It seems to assume that the judicial rents may be taken as a standard of calculation for eighteen or twenty years' purchase. The judicial rents have not given general satisfaction. The popular opinion is that tenants' improvements have not been taken into full consideration in fixing such rents. To leaseholders no help has been given. The agricultural necessity of Ireland is relief to the extent of 20 per cent, at least in annual payments. Does Mr. Trevelyan's Bill promise such relief ? It does not. In the first class of cases mentioned by Mr. Trevelyan, three- fourths of the money will be granted at 24 10s. per cent., and the term of repayment extended from thirty-five to forty years. For this difference of 10s., will any doubting farmer be made a believer in the magnanimity of the change ? I apprehend that he will continue to doubt, and prefer to remain a statutory tenant until better terms are offered.
The next class is that to which the whole of the purchase- money will be given at 5 per cent., repayable in thirty-three years. As in the Acts of 1870 81, the weakness lies in the rate of interest. Twenty years' purchase at 5 per cent. would bring no 'relief in annual payments to the present race of occupiers. It means payment equivalent to the judicial rents (and something more if you include taxes) for thirty-three years. Of course, they would then sit rent or interest free. The imme- diate want, however, is not met. I believe a large number of farmers would rather await their chance of getting a further reduction of rent at the end of the first fifteen years' statutory term than buy at twenty years' purchase at 5 per cent. interest.
Mr. Trevelyan's Bill is founded upon a lamentable misappre- hension of the agricultural situation in Ireland. That situation requires a decrease in annual payments ; the Bill overlooks this • requirement ; and hence people who appreciate pounds, shillings, and pence are tempted to prophesy that, if passed, it will be the third and last purchase-clauses fiasco.
A word on the local guarantee, which I am glad to observe you dislike. It is bad in principle, and unsatisfactory in the proposed mode of operation. The trade of towns has been in a languishing state since 1877. Many shopkeepers have gone to the wall. In the industrial arts there has been lethargy. The large majority of the farmers will for many years remain statu- tory tenants, owing to the unwillingness of the landlords to part with their estates. Upon these tenants and the inhabitants of towns would fall the deficiencies of peasant-proprietors. The prospect is not rendered more pleasing by dividing the re- sponsibility with the landlords. To them it is equally unfair. The constitution of the local body is also faulty,—one-half chosen by elected guardians and one-half by grand jurors. The cumu- lative vote obtains in Poor-law elections, and thus the two great classes would not have equal representation on the Board. If there is to be such a Board, why not let it be elected direct by the whole body of the cess-payers ? Surely it is almost time to trust the people in the management of such a local matter.
The sweeping away of legal expenses, granting a Parlia- mentary title, and 3 per cent, debentures, are all right and proper enough. But the scheme will stand or fall by the terms on which the money is advanced by the State. Mr. Trevelyan's terms are not suited to agricultural exigencies, and axe, there- fore, unequal to the removal of the deadlock in land. The- period of repayment should be extended to fifty-two years at least, the rate of interest proportionately reduced, and the bomb guarantee sent to oblivion. This is the light in which Mr..
Previous page
