THE IRISH LAND QUESTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 6281, 30 May 1881, Page 3

THE IRISH LAND QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sm,—ln your issue of the 23rd instant appear some valuable extracts from the reports of the last of the 39 Land Commissions that have been appointed during the present halfcentury, and what a state of affairs these reports disclose ! The most Conservative of these Commissioners furnish a report of their own. Speaking of the depression four causes are assigned. Cause 4 is “ Excessive competition for land.” This is subdivided into four heads. Remember Davitt, Dillon, and others are now undergoing impiisomnent for endeavoring to remedy the evils pointed out in these clauses. What Ireland really wants is an intelligent, healthy, public opinion among the farmers, such as the Land League would and will confer on them. Th’s part of their report I have in previous letters dwelt upon. Let me come to Griffith’s valuation. The Commissioners say :—“ The annual value, as set forth in that document, was not intended to represent, and did not represent at the date w en the valuation was made, the rental value of the property.” This paragraph is the outcome of other extracts from the directions issued by Sir R. Griffith to the valuers thirty years ago. _ Allow me to briefly explain how that valuation was

made. Four things were relied on. 1. The soil, according to its capability for producing—chemical analy-es being fr- -|uently made. 2, The current prices of animal and vegetable productions in the district or nearest market town. 3. The situation, with respect to roads and markets, i. The price of labor. Taking these tests into consideration, the question was reduced to a simple arithmetical -me. If the landlord farmed the plot of land nud paid all labor what, under the given circumstances, would be his profit? Answer— Griffith's valuation', A fairer test may be applied, but it lias yet to be discovered. Moreover, in that quarto volume of over 500 pages there is to confirm this another rule, by which the elaborate one was to be tested—viz., the value should be, as nearly as possible, what a good, solvent tenant should pay a fair landlord. This is proof positive that it was a fair rent when made. Allow me to add that from my own observation it is still a fair rent in those rich limestone districts, where no amount of good farming will appreciably improve the soil, though it may the crops. It has been argued that prices and facilities have increased; so, too, have labor and necessaries to counterbalance these, and the tenants had to pay for the facilities. The next paragraph in the report of the 13 deserves attention, but remember the fate of the Disturbance Bill last year, before swallowing the good intention. I will now pass brief!? to Professor Bmamy Price's objections. The first objection he answers by saying, Let the judge be empowered to award a still sharper penalty, &c. Evidently he believes two things (1) The judges have not sufficient discretionary power ; (2) The Act does not award a sufficient fine for disturbance. Hence his object seems to be, like that of Midshipman Easy, “ to argue the point.” His objections to fixity of tenure are clearly put, but to all these I would answer after the proverbial fash'ou of an Irishman, Why should not a farmer's interest in his holding be an article of value ? If it were it would be transferable. A learned professor says it should not, because “ it would be a violation of that respect for property which is the fundamental principle of social order, political economy, and civilisation.” lu other words, the occupier of the land shall have no rights, no interest, no protection for his outlay in the land he cultivates, because it is not conducive to social order, political economy, and civilisation ! The tenant shall be subject to eviction and all its consequent miseries, even to screening himself behind a hedge with a revolver, and all to maintain social order !

In answer to his objection to free sale I will merely say if the tenant has nothing to sell he oanuot expect to realise much. The Professor appears to be an excellent special pleader, as witness his order of discussing the three F's. An Irishman, nay, an hooest man, would commence with fair rent, next fixity of tenure. These granted, the tenant disposing of his holding would, under ordinary circumstances, have something more than a “ myth ” to dispose of. The report of the six needs no comment from me. I will therefore pass to consider another point, which, though it does not crop up in the report, is assumed to be unquestionably allowed, viz,, the landlord claims everything, the tenant can own nothing. It has been asked why should land be the only species of property which the Government should be called on to interfere in, contrary to principles of free trade ! Simply because the landlords assume prerogatives which they should not possess. Assuming that the landlords acquired their estates honestly, and not, as Mr. Stout, in his lecture, said, in a “ more immoral manner than even the mistresses of immoral sovereigns,” if they purchase the estate, they know it is occupied by tenants having a vested interest therein. What, then, do they purchase ? simply the rents and nothing more. Why should they in this manner possess powers which owners of Government, banks, railways or other stocks do not possess ? It a landlord purchases Government stocks he will not tell the Government they, owing to increased revenue, the capture of prize vessels, or other causes, can pay more than 3 per cent, and must. Neither would he be permitted to turn the bank or railway managers and associates adrift unless they consented to work for nothing, that he may obtain a larger dividend. And yet this is the despotic power which wo place in the hands of the capitalists who bay the fee simple of land to the detriment of thoss who cultivate it.—Thanking you for past favors, I am, &c., Desmond.