THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1881. THE WELLINGTON LAND LEAGUE MEETING.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2291, 5 August 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1881. THE WELLINGTON LAND LEAGUE MEETING.

A new civilisation is apparently about to dawn on the world, the leading feature in which is the shooting of landlords and smaller fry. At least such is the opinion of certain eminent individuals who met last Monday in Wellington for the purpose of generally backing up the Laud League, and of introducing an organisation of a similar character into New Zealand. The meeting in question was presided over by Mr. Hutchison, M.H.R, and among the speakers were Sir George Grey, Messrs. Speight, Sheehan, Lundon, and other shining lights of the Grcyito party. The sentiments uttered ou the occasion were of the most cheering and philanthropic character. Sir George Grey, who is evidently disgusted with the whole social

fabric as at present existing, declared hie delight that it was about to bo broken up,, and that ho and his followers were privileged to lead the van of the great enterprise. He no doubt looked forward to the happy time when, all proprietors having been shot down or otherwise disposed of, the happy tenants would at some “ feast of reason and flow of soul,’ - presided over by Sir George himself, toast the departed spirits and prepare themselves for fresh enterprises. Mr. Lnndon s great grief was that the landlordshooting in Ireland was not straight enough, while Mr. Tawhai, after declaring “ that ho might have been a Russian, a French, a Turk, or Prussian, or perhaps Ital-i-an, but that in spite of all temptations, &c.,” bo was only a man, declared, amid loud cheering, that his feelings towards the Land League were of themost cordial character.

In reading the report of the meeting, as furnished by the Wellington papers, the first thing that strikes one is the utter absence of all recognition of the efforts made by the Liberal party in England to ameliorate the condition of the Irish tenant. A person unacquainted with current events would find nothing in the speeches made to lead him to gather that Mr. Gladstone had carried his propositions to the verge of confiscation ; that, when his Bill passes, the Irish tenant farmer will be, in most respects, in a better condition than his brother tenant in England and Scotland; and that he will have an almost incontrovertible right to the land for ever and a day, so long as he pays his rent, which rent can, at option, be fixed by an impartial tribunal. He would also ha unaware of the fact that the Land League has not forced the English Government into liberal measures for Ireland, hut that for years the Liberal Party have been zealously working towards improving the condition of the poorer classes there. He would further be unable to 'gather from Sir George Grey and his following that theLeaguers are striving tooth and nail to thwart the efforts we have alluded to, and that one result of their teaching has been that precautions have to be taken for the safety of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Forster, both of them men who have nothing dearer to their hearts than the welfare of Ireland.

Sir George Grey, as usual, took very good care not to formulate hia complaints, but, for all that, the public would like to know how far he is prepared to go. We may remind him that the Land League is responsible for the present State Ireland, that it advocates a system of iezyocism, and that it obstructs beneficial legi oblation in the House of Commons. We have before alluded to the remarkable statistics, which sheet home the present disorders to this organisation, but we will briefly recapitulate them. The small amount of crime to be dealt with in the Summer Assizes of 1880 was a subject of verygeneral remark with the Irish Judges, but in October things were changed, agressive outrages were numerous, and every farmer’s boy, every farmer’s son and people of that class, were armed with a rifle or revolver. In the interim the Land League had been formed, and Mr. Dillon had sounded the tocsin in that inflammatory speech at Tipperary, where he declared the Land. League policy to bo obstruction in Parliament and the arming and drilling of the people. Constitutional agitation no liberal-minded man can object to, but thq policy of the Land League is not CQiisif.tutional —it is absolute confiscation gained' by terrorism. And the terrorism exercised by the Land League is not confined to landlords only. The list of outrages is full of attacks upon herdsmen for herding cattle, upon artizans, upon mechanics, and upon small farmers and tradesmen—upon everybody, in short, who will not serve the Land League. The organisation may disclaim any connection with these deeds, but they are the result of itsteaching and of that alone. The Cause would have as much reason to quarrel with the Effect, as the Land League t& complain that its disciples have exceeded their instructions.

We will not stop to argue the question whether either the proposals of Mr. Gladstone or the ultra views of the extreme Homo Rulers would eventuate in theamelioration of the Irish tenant. There are those who hold that the cause of their poverty is the overcrowding of the people in small holdings, and that the proposed remedial legislation will only increase theevil. These people believe that the true way out of the dfficulty would be to promote, not so much emigration, as the removal of small farmers and cotters from more to less crowded districts. These people trace the poverty of the land, not altogether to the land question, hut partly to by-gone legislation, by which Irish commerce was crushed by the selfishness of English monopolists. They place faith in the revival of Irish industries, and they declare that the tendency of free trade is, both in Ireland and in England, to crush out the small cultivator, who is incapable of struggling against foreign competition, and that to this cause is also due the disappearance of the English yeoman, who was at one time the backbone of the nation. However, to ventilate such a subject would be outside of the present question.

Bat, before concluding, we may fairly ask Sir George Grey, Mr. Lundon, and the others to declare distinctly their -views, and the means by which they propose to attain them. The former gentleman would be, in all probability, at the present moment member for Christchurch, if It had not been for an informality in his election. Those who voted for him would like to know the views of the gentleman to whom they granted their suifragesc Many of them are landlords, and all hope to be. Is Sir George diametrically opposed to all rights of property ?- That ho partly approves of the means employed by the Land League to nullify those rights is apparently evident.