THE IRISH LAND PURCHASE BILL.

Otago Witness, Issue 1989, 10 April 1890, Page 14

THE IRISH LAND PURCHASE BILL.

Until the English mails arrive more than a month hence, it will not be possible properly to appreciate the proposals which Mrßalfour brought forward the other day in the House of Commons in regard to the Irish Land question ; while the final attitude of parties towards the Bill is not likely to be assumed until the time for the second reading draws near. The subject is one of considerable complexity, and it is not simplified by a review of the previously expressed opinions of different politicians • and parties. It will be remembered that Mr Gladstone's Home Rule proposals of 1886 were accompanied by a great scheme of land purchase. Referring to that scheme at Liverpool on January 29, Mr Morley said : " We, in 1886, brought in a Land Purchase " Bill, and we paid for it. That Bill had "..some faults. But the policy upon which 11 that Bill was founded was that some plan " of equitable expropriation of such land- " lords as might choose to leave their country " ought to accompany the Home Rule pro- " posal. We^hought thatwas a wise policy— 11 wise, not for the landlord's sake, I beg you 11 to observe— but wise because it would 11 be unfair to leave this terrible question, " with all the passion and all the animosities 11 that circle round the Irish question in Ire11 land. We thought it would be unfair to " leave that to confront the inexperienced " Irish Parliament upon its very threshold." Of course, this scheme was violently denounced by the Conservative party, and it probably had at least as great a share as the Home Rule proposal itself In the task of breaking the integrity of the Liberal party. Indeed, it was received without enthusiasm or even confidence by Mr Gladstone's most zealous supporters. The country rejected the entire policy, but the succeeding Government was not unwilling to make certain smaller and tentative movements in the direction of Irish land purchase. They passed measures which are known as the Ashbourne Acts (from the name of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland who introduced them) and by which sums of money, comparatively small, were advanced by the State in order

to enable Irish tenants to buy out their landlords and become responsible solely to the State itself. Much controversy exists as to the effect of these Acts. It must be remembered that their operation has been of a limited character, but so far as we can gather from conflicting assertions, their tendency has not been other than beneficial. The Government is now proposing a scheme which is neither small or tentative— a scheme which involves an appropriation of over 40 millions sterling, and which is apparently not very dissimilar to that of Mr Gladstone which was scouted by the Conservative party four years ago. " The Irish Land Purchase " Bill creates a central land department. " The payment of 4 per cent, for 49 years " ensures a freehold. A special Board 11 supervises and amalgamates holdings, • and controls immigration and einigra- " tion, as well as seed supply and the " fisheries. The tenants pay the heavier " amounts for the first five years in order to 11 form an insurance fund and erect labourers' " cottages. In other respects the Bill is " similar to Lord Ashbourne's Act." The emanation of such a scheme from a Conservative Ministry is a suggestive sign of the political time. The following sentence from a Times leader probably gives a fairly accurate notion of the Ministerial attitude:— ".lt is not " disguised that any land purchase scheme on " a large scale is a departure from rigid econo- " mical principles, but its defence is that Mr " Gladstone and Mr Parnell between them " have reduced Ireland to such a condition " that . . . the alternative of allow- •• ing the land market to be closed "by predatory combination has become " intolerable." As a matter of fact, in introducing this Bill the Ministry has two objects : it desires to make hay while the sun shines for its landlord friends and it hopes to scotch the agitation for Home Rule. It is working upon the plausible but fallacious assumption that the land question once settled, the cry for a National Parliament will practically cease. Mr Morley recently quoted a saying of Lord Derby in 1881 upon this point : " I contend " that if the question were settled, its dis- " appearance would only bring on in a direct 11 instead of in an indirect form the claim " which really underlies it — the demand "for an Irish Parliament." In 1881 Mr Gladstone had not made Home Rule a question of practical politics, and Lord Derby has never been a Home Ruler, but we believe the opinion quoted to be as true to-day as it was nine years ago. The Land Purchase proposal of 1886 went hand in hand with a proposal to establish an Irish Parliament; the Bill of 1890 goes hand in hand with a fixed determination to refuse such an establishment. In the considerations arising from this fact will probably be found the chief grounds for Gladstonian opposition to Mr Balfour's measure. Moreover, there exists a widely spread opinion in the Liberal party that Mr Gladstone and Mr Morley were wrong in thinking that the land question could not be safely left for the decision of the prospective Irish Parliament even if those statesmen do not think so themselves now. There is also a strong suspicion as to the Ministerial administration of the Ashbourne Act. Sir George Trevelyan goes so far as to say that there is an "assertion of the power of the " Executive in order to prevent the " landlord from having to make anything 11 but a good bargain." More deeply rooted still is the disinclination to stake the credit of the British taxpayer to so vast a degree upon the security of Irish land and for the immediate benefit of Irish landlords. Professor Stuart says: "The last election in " London was won because the Conservative " party placarded London from one end to the " other with the assertion that the Liberal "party proposed to tax England to pur- " chase the Irish land. In short, the 11 opposition to the Bill will evidently " take the double form of disagreement " with the scheme on its merits and dis- " approval of the choice of time and circum- " stance attending its appearance." With Mr Gladstone the latter consideration is likely to be prominent, and the former with the more advanced section of his party. Whether the Bill will finally pass it is impos sible to say; Lord Salisbury has evidently had some difficulties with his own party in regard to it. The large boldness of the proposal, together with its disregard of " rigid economical principles," is calculated to discount considerably in the minds of many Conservatives the satisfaction of lending ahelping hand to the Irish landlords; and Lord Salisbury is far less skilled in the art o£ "educating" his supporters than was Benjamin Disraeli. Still, disloyalty to the Ministerial policy on the part of Conservatives or Liberal "Unionists" would inevitably precipitate an appeal to the country, and for such an event few Ministerial adherents in the House of Commons are particularly eager.