THE GOMBEE MAN IN IRELAND.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 142, 16 June 1888, Page 3 (Supplement)

THE GOMBEE MAN IN IRELAND.

Letter From Mr Chamberlain.

Mr J. Chambeklaik writes to the ' Times ': —In the cour?e of the debate upon Mr Parneli's Arrears Bill the House was assured by the Irish members that the goombeen man was now extinct and remained only in the imagination of the wise men of Birmingham. The following is an extract from a letter I have just received from one of the Assistant Land Commissioners. Ho says : —

During the last week and since your action on the subject I have made carefulinqUiries among the smaller tenants whose rents I was fixing as to the part played by the local money-lenders in the locality. I found that a very large proportion of the poor mountain tenants had borrowed what to them were large sums from the gombeen men. The interest charged was 5 per cent, each quarter, or 23 per cent, per annum. When a tenant required a little money for some temporary necessity, he used to go to the local money-lender, who advanced him a sum of, say £5, getting as security the borrower and some neighbouring farmer who ' backed a bill' for the amount. The interest fdr the first quarter was then stopped out of the advance. When the end of the quarter arrived the gombeen man was never anxious to be repaid his money. He only asked fora secondquarter's interest. The tenant in this way noon found it much easier to pay each quarter 5s interest on the original £5 borrowed than to repay the original. If he ever made default in the interest both he and his surety were sued before the County Court and put to costs which added largely to the debt. Rather than incur this risk the surety as a rule would pay up on demand the interest due. The result is that, the gombeen man in a few years is repaid his entire advance, and a good interest in addition, and still the farmer is liable for the full amount, and has to continue his annual payment of 20 percent, to the lender. As a rule I found there is little difficulty in getting a ' surety ' to 'back a bill.' If.a man is, asked he never knows when lie may himself require a loan and a ' surety,' and to get accommodation he must give it. . . This loan system, which I found very prevalent among the very small farmers, is very oppressive, yet its operation is almost silent. If the tenant requires relief from arrears due to the landlords, far more does he require it from the leech-like exactions of the ' gombeen man.' I think it clear that the statements of Mr Dillon and his colleagues in reference to the usurer must be subjucted to the same critical examination as other assertions from the came source, which have been proved again and again to be inaccurate. I have no doubt that it would be a great advantage to large numbers of the small tenants to secure relief from the weight of their general indebtedness ; and their creditors, whether landlords or shopkeepers, would find their advantage in starting these men afresh. On the other hand the effect of Mr Parneli's Bill would be simply to improve the security of the money - lender, who obtains 20 per cent. interest, at the expense of the landlord, who thinks himself very happy when he gets 3 per cent.