THE IRISH LAND QUESTION.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 4697, 19 November 1889, Page 4

THE IRISH LAND QUESTION.

Tr, hi« adore** at >*<ipi-'p Mr Dillon spoke r.« f.. linns un tl:i» »u'-j^ct :— 1 ho l»ml <i'.if*t ion :i» IJj.-t oil ko-'W. bad rarimm phases, nr.rt In? vo'il.i t!r«' fir.Vfif 1 ' it with 30010 of the tisjvets of tli-.- ltmdfytem prevailing in tbe.-e ■ • ] .ni.'.. It ind bi-cn t"l<l him f>iat in Aus-t.-.i'.ii ana >'cw Zealand complaint* were made of thf monopolies cf land in the hands of individu iU. But when th'se'lands y>s«erl »' to th- hinds of individuals or corporations they cirried no population with it^ and . all that i-milil be p.-s.-ibly complained of was that they obs!rui-lcd th-? "pjp.iiation of the country. Ilont'vor i! was different in Ireland. Thev hud lo votopUio them thtt their roost fertile land* were thickly popul ited by as fine a people as over wat seen, when tho Undlordj camo, »• by force of »rnn, cltared them off the fairest portion* of those lan<!«nnd turned thorn into bnlloci farms and sheep runs. At this iunctura he would cill attention to an-iit!i.-r Hjcumcnt which stated that th* Irish tet.anl was in n more faTourablo position than V:c tenant! in any other country, and tint the Irish landlord was more restricted in Ins dealings with his tenants. Now, he could assure them that that etatcmect was based on ignorance and misconception. What the Irish tenantry claimed was that they were- ir possession before ever the landlords set fool in Ireland, and they were the true owners of the land, which mu confiscated orer their heads, and rents imposed on their lands nnd improvement!. This, he might mention, had b.vn going on for centuries, and though he w.is willing to admit that long possession give the landlord Tested interests, he neter liid admitted that that placed them in the rime position as men who, being in possession of property, rented it to other men. They wero uerer in possession. It was an undoubted and indisputable fact that the ancotors of the tenants were there before them. Tho land was brought under cultivation by them, and their TiMit waa piled o\\ for tho improvements which ther had effected by their own toil, and they had in fact to pay for the very bouses which thej themselves had built. Where was the .■i.-hiogy and likeness between that state of thaiga'and this colon;, where men brought land, bniit houses, and leased them ? The o.isos were not nnaloeous at all. The Irish 1 .ndlorJs were feudal lords, bloodsuckers, and an undoubted cur»o to the country. The verv utmost they could claim nai their right to ;i fair valuation cf their interest*, nnd then they could clear out. It would be an undoubted boon to tho country if they did this. (Applause.) He on hi* part wm perfectly willing to give that value, lis did not p.dvoCiite coaSieation. He would ask them one question, What would tho feelings, of men in ;.Vw Zealand bo if they took up 1 ind in the bu-h, cleared it, buiil homes and lived there, : ind alter seme time had eUpsed a landlord -, vu pU_-cd over them and demanded a rent yf «iy U'i per acre, or demanded •cventrcii jears purchase for their holdings? If they wanted an illustration of the poution in IreUnd, and an analogy with the pusition with »vr Zealand, Ihcra it was for them. Ther,.was another psint which he would place before theii for their careful consideration. In the House of Commons the AttorneyGeneral stated that if the present laws «ere fairly administered tbe property of the Irish tenants in their holdings was greater than that tf the landlords.