CONFERENCE OF IRISH LANDLORDS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4342, 24 March 1882, Page 3

CONFERENCE OF IRISH LANDLORDS .

At last the worm has turned, and his first effort at self-defence has taught him that he is not to very weak a worm after all. The Conference of landowners, which was suggested, I believe, by the Duke of Abercorn, and organised by some of his brother Peers, turned out a splendid success. It was held in the Exhibition Palace, and the great building was crowded from floor to ceiling. Over eight thousand persona are estimated to have been present. The Duke of Aberoorn presided, and made a very moderate speech, defining the position which Irish landlords as a class ought to take up in the present crisis. He accepted the Land Act, but stipulated that it should be administered by competent men in a manner to win public confidence. The landowners, he said, would submit to muoh for the sake of peace, but they would not allow their property to be dissipated in the vain attempt to propitiate a homicidal and seditious Land League. A series of resolutions were adopted, following very much in the lines of his Grace's opening address. In fact, the programme had been very carefully considered and arranged beforehand. There was nothing, or at least very little, said about compensation ; but the Assistant Commissioners came in for strong bfts of the minds of several speakers. The first resolution avowed the willingness of the meeting to submit to the Land Act as part of the law of the realm, but observed with alarm that the measure was being administered in a manner at variance with the pledge that it would not diminish the value, or disturb the foundations of property. The second resolution declared that the position, antecedents, experience, and status of the Associated Commissioners should be such as to ensure the impartial and judicial exercise of their functions, nnd to command the confidence of suitors and the public. The landlords could hardly have expressed more plainly their opinion that thoao essential requisites are wanting in tho present holders of the office. Mr Forßter himsolf must now realise that serious errors were committed in the selection of the Assistant Commissioners. They were greatly under-paid for the class of men that was really wantod. Many, if not most of them, word publicly committed beforehand to the course of oonduct they have since pursued. Their decisions have been most erratic, and consistent in nothing but arbitrariness. They hare, widely for themselves, but unfortunately for tie Act, abstained from oxplaining their decisions. Not one of them has ever avowed thn principles on which he forms his judgment, and the resentment of the landlords against them is at least intelligible. Mr Forster would perhaps reply that their decisions have still to bs reviewed by the Land Court in Dublin, and that it is premature to condemn them till they have been affirmed or reversed. Thore is little iJoubt Ilia*; all bat the moil exLraTugint of them will be sustained, for the Chief Commissioners are themselves committed to the most liberal interpretation of tho Act in the tenants' intimfe. It will weigh with them