South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, MARCH 7, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2484, 7 March 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. MONDAY, MARCH 7, 1881.

The Irish drama promises to be one of the most interesting pieces that has yet adorned the stage oi the universe. The incidents may not be so sanguinary, but the scenes are far more interesting than anything produced during the French revolution. The name of Parnell is a greater power in the United Kingdom than was that of Kobespierre in France. Fortunately between the French and the Irish revolution there is one great distinction —the latter has been tolerably free from bloodsh-u. , whereas the former was accompanied by an

unnecessary sacrifice of life. Robespierre was cruel and vindictive—he lived by the sword and he died by the guillotine—Parnell, although a revolutionist, has this in his favor, that he has exercised his influence with a discontented population by counselling a passive resistance. Many who were inclined at first to denounce the leader of the Irish Land League are beginning, as events enable them to obtain a better insight into his character, to admire the selfabnegation and sound valour he has displayed in the duel that is being fought between the two classes into which British society is divided, the hereditary nobles and landowners and their serfs—the tillers of the soil. When we referred to this struggle some months ago, we felt inclined, like the majority, we believe, of distant and impartial spectators, to denounce the Parnell agitation as premature. We relied on the liberality and sense of justice displayed in tiie hustings declarations of Mr Gladstone and his colleagues, and rve felt confident that the ends sought by the tenants of Ireland would be more speedily attained by the exercise of a little forbearance than by inflammatory harangues. Since then, however, the progress of the drama has thrown a new light on the political horizon. Mr Gladstone, although at the head of a Liberal Ministry is evidently the servant, not the master of the situation. If he wore, the House of Lords would hardly dare to frustrate his Afghan policy by resisting the withdrawal of troops from Candahar; his speeches at the last general election would not bo belied by the attempted subjugation of the gallant Boers in the Transvaal; and coercion might follow, but certainly would not precede, the measure of laud reform which is now proposed for Ireland, If the highly colored details of Agrarian outrages which reached this part of the world some months ago, were calculated to excite sympathy for the landlords and their agents, the extreme measures that have recently been taken against the Land Leaguers must stir up philanthropic feeling in favor of the League. Some of the leaders of the movement have been arrested and imprisoned, others have been indicted for felony, and exposed to a State prosecution, troops have been poured into Ireland, the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended, the bayonet has been pointed at the breasts of the population, and even driven through the skin, liberty of speech has been prohibited, the iron hand has been wielded in the Parliament of the nation, and now under a Coercion Bill and an Anns’ Act, the terror-stricken people of Ireland are leaving the country. The Land League have moved their quarters to Paris, intent, apparently, on continuing their struggle from Republican soil. The inference is that the people of France heartily sympathise with the movement. If the Courts of Europe are excluded it is probable that the champions of tenants’ rights have the compassionate recognition of the civilised world to strengthen them. We are told that there are millions in America—where slavery is so well understood—that are praying for the emancipation of the white slaves of Ireland. Believers in human rights and human liberty who have watched this struggle, will probably agree in thinking that the Coercion Bill that is wanted is not a Coercion Bill for Ireland but a Coercion Bill for the British House of Lords, winch will enable its members to overcome their objections to the mild measure of land tenure reform proposed by the Gladstone Cabinet.

It is but natural, however, that the House of Lords should manifest a sturdy resistance to the movement, which, originated in Ireland, is seen to be spreading through the United Kingdom. They have insisted upon extreme measures. These constitute their forlorn hope. The reorganisation of the British army, thd diversion offered by foreign conquests, arc favorite methods of delaying reforms at home. But the Irish Land League have raised a ghost that has made a more disturbing impression on the British aristocracy than did the ghost of Banquo at Macbeth’s feast. The question is one of life and death importance to the nobles of Great Britain. Take away the land ; turn its revenues from their private purses into the public treasury; give the tillers of the soil ' a fair control over it, and you will immediately take away the foundation of feudalism. These props are decayed ; they are an eyesore to an educated community ; they are relics of barbarism—too unsightly for a museum, and only fit for burial. The land has sustained them till they have grown rotten, and at last, apparently, the inevitable has come.

To those who may bo apt to think that the condition of the land question in the colonies and land tenure in Great Britain are almost analagous, we would point out that they are under a most erroneous impression. In the colonies the Government have control over the land ; it is a source of revenue that the State can always fall back upon. Hereditary right is a thing unknown, and it would not be tolerated. In Great Britain —for Ireland is scarcely any worse off than the Highlands of Scotland, and some parts of England—the land is made to contribute to a.selfish landocracy, who, as a rule, have no community of feeling with the farming or industrial classes, and who treat those under them as beasts of burden. The position of the British landlord and his tenant is that of the slave and his master. The earth may yield its produce, but the sower reaps only what his taskmaster graciously allows. If the producer has not enough to live on, he and his family must starve in silence; should he refuse, he

is turned out on the road or into the poor-house. Is it surprising that discontentment should reign in a land where gluttony and starvation, thrift and idleness, poverty and wealth, are twin sisters ? The people are fighting, not merely for themselves but for their families, for the future, against a monopoly, against a crushing despotism, for the divin.e .principle of right. They have resolved that they will no longer he dumb beasts of burden, and that the men who have divided land, river, and lake, the birds, beasts, and fishes, and who would divide the sea and the atmosphere if they only could, must take a turn at the wheel and give an account of their muscles if they would enjoy the pleasures of existence. The land revolution is nut confined to Ireland; and, if we mistake not, the Irish Coercion Bill and Arms Act may temporarily subdue the flames in Ireland, but they will spread the fire all over Great Britain. The. revolution in England and Scotland is slow but it is strong, for the masses are united. The surface may seem placid, but the pent-up emotions of centuries are boiling upwards.