THE NO-RENT MANIFESTO.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IX, Issue 457, 13 January 1882, Page 21

THE NO-RENT MANIFESTO.

(Glasgow correspondence of the Nation.) At the recent meeting in the grand National Hall, Mr. Ferguson enunciated some views on the question, which, as they have not been hitherto noticed or reported, may be of interest in view of the forthcoming debate. He pointed out how the Government had not dared to say that it was illegal for a man to advise another not to pay rent until certain conditions had been fulfilled, such advice being both legal and moral, and being given daily. Earl Fitzwilliam, in the Reform agitation, advised a run upon the Bank of England, and Earl Russell advised the people to strike against the taxes until reform was conceded. His (Mr. Ferguson's) disagreement with the no-rent manifesto was simply that it was inexpedient. If such a move had been desirable, a year or so should have been spent in educating the people up to the doctrine before the strike was declared, as in the case of Griffith's valuation, when it took the League nearly two years to educate the people into making their demand. The Government declares it illegal to intimidate men against paying rent. No Government can tolerate intimidation, and Mr. Ferguson holds it to be, as he always held it, an immoral as well as an illegal weapon. By careful education in the true principles of the question the agricultural classes could have been united to do what Nassau Senior, a Government man, more than 20 years ago said would settle the question—viz., to quietly, legally, and firmly declare against all rent until the necessary reforms which would enable them to live were conceded. But a better course than this could have been adopted, and that is — the Land Bill having become law, it should have been utilised, not by quietly settling down into the erroneous belief that the Bill is a permanent or even present settlement. The League could have fairly put it before the world that in three years it had carried a bill which contained principles which justified its existence and future action, as well as principles which would benefit the agricultural classes by millions sterling annually. With the prestige of this work it could have then pointed out the artificial and unscientific character of the Bill. A court to regulate rent is as absurd as attempts made on the Continent to fix the price of beef, and have jt sold without bone. Now, in fact, if a sixth of the farmers of Ireland went into the. court, all the barristers in the country, aided by all the sub-commissioners who could reasonably be appointed, would not in five years have got over half the cases, and in the meantime if the farmers refuse to pay, as they reasonably could, until the fair rent was fixed — by lodging the money in the court or offering to do so — half the landlords of Ireland would be sold off by their creditors, or would sell off very cheap themselves, and this would be " no rent" with a vengeance. All this the League could have pointed out clearly enough as the consequence of an artificial bill which went right in the teeth of economic science, and of which the Duke of Argyll says :— " It is a barbarous enactment against science, and the best that can be hoped it will do is speedily to complete its o^vn death and burial." Mr. Ferguson does not wish to be wise after the event. Those who heard him years ago will recognise the sentiments. He admits that the cowardly and unstatesmanlike arrest of Parnell and the proclamation of the League were enough to make bold and brave men take the course that was taken ; still, like the charge at Balaclava, he declares, " it may have been beautiful and magnificent — but then, it was not war." To win the game is the object of the League. we must now close our ranks, and, without discord, or dissension, or talking about the past, see what course is to be taken for the future. If the expression of opinion in Ireland is to be followed by arrest and imprisonment, then it is necessary that a number of meetings be arranged, and that men whose moderation in the past could give no ground for their arrest shall take their places at those meetings and discuss the questions as freely as in England, and if arrested they will break the teeth of persecution — just as the arrest of Bunyan and the Noncomformists in Puritan times, and Southwell, Carlisle, and others in radical times did in England.