Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub

economic farm has "busted." Instead of pocketing the profit effected by the expatriation of four farmers and twenty labourers, it has now been found, after twenty years' experience, that, so far from wealth being produced, it has been absorbed. On the 29th September last, the great landlord took possession of the great farm, confiscating the flocks and the herds, the steam engines and the steam ploughs, for arrears of rent.

These arrears have been piled up to a degree that would have caused a scandal even in Ireland. Fourteen thousand pounds is, it appears, the landlord's modest claim, and his preference title for rent leaves the farmer penniless and his other creditors wholly unsatisfied. We thought that our sufferings were at least enriching the farmer and the landlord, but under this economic system the landlord gets less than he did before, and no one else gets anything. We begin to wonder why we should allow ourselves to be the victim of a system which seems to have about it as much of the fool as of the knave. We sincerely hope that the cross between these two will not breed again, and that the species will come to an end. It adds much to our mortification to find that our landlord is such a very ordinary man. Quite as capable as any of us of making blunders, and with nothing on the other side to distinguish him. No man expects a landlord in the present day to exhibit more capacity than is involved in the effort of receiving rent, but then he ought to have ancestors. So far as we know, our landlord has no remarkable ancestors. of his great-grandfathers had killed a great many Frenchmen for the benefit of his country, that would be good reason for starving a number of Englishmen on his own behalf. We can, however, discover nothing about our landlord either very good or very bad to justify our subserviency. Why should a man who is not much better or much worse than the rest of us be allowed to import fox cubs, stop our footpaths, close our playgrounds, drive away our farmers, and expatriate our labourers all for the benefit of nobody, not even of himself?

If one

We are sinning against light and against knowledge, for in the very locality which has illustrated the failure of the big farm system we have abundant evidence that small working farmers can live and prosper. Weighted as they are with treble the rent that the large farmers pay, they still live, and live a life much more worth living than that of the labourer on nine shillings or ten shillings per week, and a working farmer produces from the land three or four times as much as a large farmer. If our landlord had adopted the opposite policy to that of which he became enamoured, and if instead of aggregating farms he had divided them, the population would have increased instead of diminishing, and he might have become the happy centre of a prosperous people.

Will he learn by experience? It does not seem so. We might have supposed that the

failure which has resulted from driving farmers and labourers off the land, would have shown him that mankind and land were not to be separated, and that the earth will yield fruit only to careful and loving tillage. We should have supposed that the moment he entered upon the occupation of the starved and dilapidated farm he would set additional labourers to work to make up for past deficiencies. But not so. A single Saturday was not allowed to pass without the dismissal of ten labourers, who thus suddenly lose their means of support at the beginning of the winter season. Only forty-two men and boys are now employed on this enormous farm. land, if divided into lots of from five to ten acres, would give pleasant and profitable employment to three hundred men and their families. In building the accommodation they would require every artisan in the neighbourhood might be fully occupied, and the result would be in even greater proportion than the labour expended. Then the shopkeeper would rejoice, children would blossom as the rose, and life be worth living. It is in the power of our landlord to blight all this possible prosperity, and he does it. WILLIAM SAUNDERS.

The

THE agricultural labourer is giving up his favourite recreation of leaning against a post and staring into space, and has taken to reading. Country squires and parsons, please note!

THERE is an Unconquerable in man, when he stands on his Rights of Man. Let Despots and Slaves and all people know this, and only them that stand on the Wrongs of Man tremble to know it.-Carlyle.

OUR INHERITANCE: LAND COMMON PROPERTY NOW AND FOR EVER.-This little tract urges with much force the old point that land differs from all property in its independence of individual production or destruction, and therefore belongs to the race and not to the individual. The writer gives a review of the results of private property and land, and exhorts the community at large to resume possession.

OF the justice of assessing the owners of ground rents to the local rates there can be no question. The value of these rents has been created by the community, and consequently the community ought to get at least some benefit from it. At present, however, the ground landlords do not contribute a farthing to the local rates even when imposed on account of improvements which increase the value of their property. They simply put into their pockets the "unearned increment," and give nothing for it in return.-Daily Chronicle.

RENT AGITATION IN SOUTH DEVON. -The whole of the tenant farmers on Lord Devon's estate at Salcombe, Marlborough, and South Huist, have signed a petition to the manager, stating that unless their rents are reduced they will quit at Lady Day next. The rents average about 1 2s. 6d. per acre, and the farmers state that unless there is a reduction they must be ruined. This united action is excellent, and with increasing courage and consciousness of right it may be carried still further. Let them tender a suitable rent and refuse to leave their homesteads and farms.

WHAT DOES MR. GLADSTONE MEAN?

WE ask this question with unfeigned regret. Mr. Gladstone has made an oracular pronouncement at Nottingham which no oracle can interpret. In a party sense this may be a wise movement, but we fear that it is not so. Men do not prepare themselves for battle when the trumpet utters an uncertain sound. At the next election, whenever it may take place, intelligent electors will require to know for what they are voting. On the Irish question they will look in vain to Mr. Gladstone's speeches for enlightenment, unless he becomes more explicit in the future than he has been in the past.

Soon after their introduction, Mr. Gladstone frankly confessed the failure of his Irish bills, and wished them to be looked upon as dead. In subsequent speeches he indicated that Irish Members would not be excluded from Parliament, that Imperial credit should not be employed for the purchase of Irish land, and that the fiscal proposals should be revised. In a series of paragraphs of captivating style, Mr. Gladstone now relieves himself from all formier utterances, and leaves his way open to return to all the proposals which so alarmed the nation.

That it is the intention of the party to avail themselves of this opening, and breathe life into the deceased and discredited measures, is indicated by several concurrent incidents. Lord Wolverton, than whom perhaps no one better knows Mr. Gladstone's mind, named approval of the bills as the formula of admission to his monster picnic, to which Sir T. Grove must have subscribed if he had presented himself on the occasion. Sir Chas. Russell speaks of the application of Imperial credit to the purchase of Irish land as a matter of course; and within a few days there has appeared a "Handbook of Home Rule," edited by Mr. Bryce, with a preface by Earl Spencer and an elaborate contribution from Mr. Gladstone, in which there are two articles explaining and eulogising the Home Rule Bill, and the Bill for land purchase. There seems to be no reason for this resurrection and eulogy under Mr. Gladstone's auspices, unless it be intended to revive these

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

as I can, my friends, who may perhaps decline to be so bound, in determining the precise manner in which all the principal enactments in a future Bill for the government of Ireland should be framed. I am not prepared, and I do not intend, so to bind myself. (Great cheering.) I have endeavoured to give clear and intelligible indications by which, as an honest man, I shall be constrained to act in their letter and in their spirit. (Cheers.) I have said with regard to many important subjects that have created great difference of opinion, that I, for my part, will not allow any proposals I have been a party to making, or any opinions I may personally lean to, to become impediments in the way of the settlement of that great question (cheers), provided that settlement complies with the conditions originally laid down, provided it is not a fraud upon the people (renewed cheers), provided it has the acceptance of Ireland (loud cheers)--for without that acceptance who would be fool enough to disturb the present condition of things? (cheers), as he would have the knowledge, that he would lose the whole fruit of his labour--provided it does nothing to impair, but rather to strengthen and consolidate the unity of the Empire (cheers), and provided that no just claim of the minority is neglected. I think it is a wide and strong pledge that I give in saying that, neither as to the retention of Irish members, nor as to the use of Imperial credit in the purchase of Irish land, nor as to the delegation instead of surrender of power to the Irish Parliament-let me interject here the assertion that no power ever was surrendered, and there never was any such proposal, or any proposal but to delegate (hear, hear)-that as to the mode of action, and the particulars and the times under which the English administrative system is to be altered from one that is English and anti-National in spirit to one that is Irish and National in spirit -to the whole of those proposals the declaration I have made applies, and, rely upon it, you will find that neither I, nor any infirmities of mine, will upon those points stand in the way of a settlement desired by the two countries. (Cheers)."

Mr. Gladstone in these sentences frees himself from every proposal he has made, and from every expression which he has used respecting those proposals. The ingenious use of the expression, "No infirmities of mine shall stand in the way," &c., can be applied either to the Bills themselves or to the modifications of which he has spoken. He thus obtains an absolutely free hand, and the indications we have named seem to show that he will use his freedom to go back to the original Bills with all their objectionable features.

This action on the part of Mr. Gladstone places the country in a very serious position. No doubt the Liberal party feel certain that the atrocities which the Government are committing, will ensure to them a majority at the next election. But it will be a terrible alternative to

have to support a Government of Coercion, or a party whose Home Rule measures include the buying of Irish land at twenty years' purchase, the exclusion of Irish Members from Westminster, the establishment of a first order with a large property qualification, and tribute instead of partnership in taxation. It is a fatal sign that just in proportion as Liberal prospects improve through Tory blunders, so do the leaders hark back to the objectionable features of their Home Rule proposal. This obstinate perversity may

again be the ruin of the Liberal party. But the ruin of the party would be a small calamity compared to the triumph of injustice involved in land purchase, and the certain disruption of the Empire involved in the exclusion of the Irish Members from Westminster. Under these circumstances, every Radical voter should make it clearly known that he will not support any candidate who fails to pledge himself against land purchase and government without repre sentation.

WORK OR BREAD.

THERE cannot be the slightest doubt as to the necessity of preserving order in the streets of London, and it would be much to be regretted if men who had such an excellent case as our unemployed should throw it away by any act approaching to violence. Let them be sure that all such actions play into the hands of their enemies, and there are not wanting indications that the Government would eagerly welcome some excuse for suppressing by violence the entirely justifiable demonstrations of the unemployed. The police have acted on several occasions in a manner calculated to provoke rather than allay the passions of these assemblies. But it is all the more necessary on this account that working men should imitate their Irish brethren in their patience in face of provocation far more severe. But if disorder were to follow from the present state of things, it would be largely traceable to that spirit of indifference to the social problems of the day which prevails among the richer classes in England at the present time. If men find that the only way to attract attention is by outrage, to outrage they will unhappily resort. For such outrages, not only those who commit them, but also the whole community is to blame, for they are the direct punishment of a neglect of duty on the part of the community at large. Nor will the case be bettered by a resort to rough and ready remedies such as the Mansion House Fund in 1885, from fear of the just vengeance of the victims of social neglect. No permanent remedy can be found in Mansion House Funds or in relief works. These may be necessary at times, but they must be regarded as part of the penalty we pay for the maintenance of unjust laws, and as unerring signs of a profoundly diseased state of society. As long as the laws remain unchanged, to refuse such remedies as these is to refuse any remedies at all. But at the same time, for the rich to give back in the form of charity what has been unjustly taken-or rather a tithe of what has been unjustly taken-from the poor, has two bad results. It establishes and con firms the unjustly rich, and it pauperises the unjustly poor. It is of the nature of a

bribe. It reminds us of the charitable deeds of highwaymen. What is really wanted is a change in the laws which make those rich who ought to be poor and those poor who ought to be rich, which lead to the hindrance of all healthy productive energies, and which give the command of the labour market to a few great employers. Of such a kind, as we have often pointed out, are the laws which permit the gross inequality which exists between the taxation of land and of houses. The land owner grows rich in his sleep. He need not move a finger. Society, labouring from morn to night like a gigantic army of restless ants, turns the soil on which it lives into gold dust. But who profits? Not society. For it the soil is still common-place clay. The landowner alone reaps the benefit of the change. He alone sees the glitter of the gold dust. We often hear people speak of the immense value of the ground at Hyde Park Corner; what does this prove except the immense industry of London? And in reward for this industry the only benefit Londoners receive is that they have to shovel immense sums of money into the pockets of the owners of Hyde Park Corner in order to have the privilege of making some improvements on their property! "But how does this bear on the want of employment and poverty in London ?" it will be asked. Why thus. The absence of taxation enables the ground-landlords of London to exact immense and abnormal rents. By so much then London is poorer-so much less food can be boughtso much less can be paid in wages. But these rents would matter little if in paying them ratepayers paid their rates and taxes also. If ground-rents were properly taxed, this resultequivalent to the almost entire abolition of rents-would immediately follow. But over and above their rents, householders have to pay heavy rates and taxes on their houses. Directly a house is built it has to bear the three burdens of house rent, ground rent, and rates and taxes. What is the effect of this? In the first place, to diminish sadly the income of householders, and thereby their consuming

and producing power.
In the second place, to
discourage house-building, which can only be
undertaken at the gravest risks on the part of
the builders, while the land speculators on
whose land they build are sure of unearned
profit without any risks at all. Thus, many
builders have been ruined, and many masons
and bricklayers thrown wholly out of work.
These two effects agree in one thing. They
mean a diminution of employment. If men are
poorer-and they are poorer when overtaxed-
less things are bought, less things are made, and
therefore less men are employed. It is equally
obvious that if house-building is discouraged,
less men are employed. And it is equally
obvious that this diminution of employment
gives an almost complete command of the
labour market to the few employers who remain,
and leaves them in the position of slave-drivers,
to dictate what work and what wages they will.

Thus in many ways the present inequality of taxation leads up to this absence of employment which is becoming so grave a cause of misery and disorder in our great metropolis. There are other effects upon which we need not dilate here. If less houses are built, overcrowding is

the natural result. If money goes into the pockets of the idle at the cost of the industrious, both are demoralised. Poverty on the one hand and vicious luxury on the other are the natural offspring of such an arrangement. But what we have to insist on here is that the absence of work cannot be alleviated by anything less than a radical change in our laws of taxation. Once this is thoroughly realised, an agitation will arise which will be more formidable to the Duke of Bedford and Co. than any demonstrations can be which are so essentially lacking in aim as those recently held in Trafalgar-square. What we want to do is not to discourage such demonstrations-the more of them the better—but to give them an object and an aim. Anything more absurd than the assumption of the Standard and the Times that a man who agitates is necessarily a criminal, cannot well be imagined. It is the weak man who succumbs to injustice without a complaint. The strong man who is worth his salt, fights against injustice, and is only beaten, if beaten at all, in spite of himself. Let men agitate, say we, but unless they know what they are agitating for, they will be weak for want of purpose.

CHAMBERLAIN'S QUESTIONS AND COMMON-SENSE
ANSWERS.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN commenced his Irish
Campaign by stating at Stranraer that—

“Three hundred years ago Ulster was as dis-
loyal and turbulent as any other part of Ireland;
but after the unsuccessful rebellion the English
Government determined to plant the forfeited
estates with Scotch Presbyterians and English
Puritans.
They established industries
and commerce, and it would be disgraceful if now
you were to desert these men in their need and
hand them over to the party of sedition."

This statement of the claims of Ulster will not be attractive to the Irish people. It correctly reminds them of historical events not much to the credit of their invaders, and it rightly states the fact that by "industries and commerce," permitted to them and practically denied to the rest of Ireland, the "Scotch Presbyterians and English Puritans" made themselves less dependent on landlords than is the case with a community purely agricultural. The weight of landlordism is intolerable if it be unrelieved by manufacturing or commercial industry. No nation has ever been able to bear this burden. France, Germany, and Austria partially relieved themselves of the burden during the last century, but Irish landlords, supported by British bayonets and buckshot, have kept down the Irish people, driven them

from the fertile lands and charged them impossible rents for the sodden bogs and the stormy hills to which the people have been driven.

At Larne Mr. Chamberlain's courage had increased, and he said—

"You have now a democratic Parliament, a Parliament representing the whole people, a Parliament in which every just and reasonable claim is certain of favourable consideration."

success.

Here he commenced that policy of audacity which contributed so largely to make his tour a It requires a wonderful stretch of imagination to speak of our Parliament as democratic or representing the people, but still more elasticity is required to describe it as favourable to the consideration of every just and reasonable claim. Our Parliament is controlled by landlords and capitalists, and just legislation cannot be expected from it.

In his first great speech at Belfast, Mr. Chamberlain said—

"Irish loyalty in the House of Commons is represented only by 17 votes (hear, hear); sedition, on the contrary, enjoys a majority of 86 votes (laughter). Even in Ulster, even in the province in which I am speaking, out of 33 members, Loyalists can only secure 16. The majority of one is counted on the other side to the Parnellite or Nationalist Party."

Mr. Burke modestly said that "he did not know how to draw up an indictment against whole people." Mr. Chamberlain has no such scruples. To his mind the majority of 86 represent "sedition," although it is scarcely conceivable that in any country, under any circumstance, the majority in favour of any proposed course could be much larger than that of the National party in Ireland. If ever the voice of the people is to have attention, it should obtain it when the majority is so decisive as that of the Nationalists in Ireland.

Speaking again at Belfast, Mr. Chamberlain repeated his eulogy of the present Parliament and its readiness to adjust every grievance, and then he went on to say that :

There is an Ireland

"There are two Irelands. which is prosperous and loyal and contented, and there is an Ireland which is miserable and dissatisfied, and continually under the control and leadership of agitators, who profit by the disturbance that they create. There are also two races in Ireland, and when it is proposed to put the race which has shown all the qualities of a dominant people, which has proved in the history of the world that it can justify the ascendency which it has securedwhen it is proposed to put that race under the other, which, whatever its merits may be, has always failed in the qualities which compel success, I say that is an attempt against Nature; it is an attempt which all history and all experience show must of necessity fail, and can only lead to disaster and confusion."

Here it is that Mr. Chamberlain shows the weakness of his case as against the Irish people. So able a champion never resorts to the abuse of his opponent's attorney if he has a better line to adopt. Who are the agitators "that profit by the disturbance which they create?" Will he venture to name Michael Davitt, or Charles Stewart Parnell, or John Dillon, or William O'Brien and a host of others who have suffered and are prepared to suffer for the cause of Ireland?

Again, Mr. Chamberlain speaks of a "dominant people," and of the "ascendency which it has secured." Did he ever know of any such domination or ascendency which did not lead to oppression, and has he no sympathy for a people "rightly struggling to be free?" What has come to our ex-Democrat who has thus deserted the weak for the strong, and then accuses those who do not follow him in his change, of "profiting" by their efforts to limit oppression.

Again, Mr. Chamberlain expressed his assurance, in his speech at Coleraine, that ::

"The creation of a practically independent

Parliament at Dublin would be followed within a few months by the absolute independence of Ireland and the absolute severance of Ireland from Great Britain."

Here is the old bogey of separation revived by the very man who has himself proposed several schemes for Home Rule. The severance of Ireland is more likely to come about under the existing condition of things than under reasonable Home Rule. Even the proposal of Home Rule has done much to promote real union. As a proof of this last assertion, take Mr. O'Brien's midnight speech at Woodford :

"It had taken a great deal," he said, "to convince him that the English people were with them; but he was now convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that the hearts of the English masses were being won over to the Irish cause every week in thousands and in millions."

Does this look like separation?

"

Then Mr. Chamberlain went on to say :

In Great Britain you have capital and to spare; millions and millions of money are constantly seeking investment. If Ireland were peaceable and settled, this capital would be poured into Ireland."

The plain answer to this is that "if Ireland were peaceable and settled," i.e., if Ireland submitted without a complaint to the rack-renting of Irish landlords, yet more money would be drawn out of her. As it is, some ten millions are drawn from the produce of her soil annually and spent, for the most part, in England, while the contributors are left in the deepest poverty. But for those who protest against this evil and who by protesting have diminished it, more millions would be extracted, and Ireland, instead of being richer, would be poorer.

Again, Mr. Chamberlain made various accusations against the Irish Members. He accused them downright of caring nothing for the interests of the tenant farmers of Ireland. The absurdity of bringing this charge against men to whose efforts alone were due the Land Acts of 1870, 1881, and, we may add, 1887, and who anticipated all these Acts over and over again, is almost laughable. But Mr. Chamberlain passes over all previous Land Acts and bases his charge (1) on their readiness to accept the Land Bill of last year; (2) on alleged obstruction to the Land Act of last session; and (3) on their refusal to accept his pet compromise in the matter of arrears-the compromise of revising all debts, either to tradesmen or to landlords. Taking the last charge first, we can only repeat what we have said before, that no more pernicious principle

« НазадПродовжити »