NOTES AND NOTIONS [By a New Zealander Abroad.] [Special Correspondence of Auckland Star]

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 188, 22 January 1887, Page 2

NOTES AND NOTIONS [By a New Zealander Abroad.] [Special Correspondence of Auckland Star]

Ijreland- Condition of the Irish Fahmrrs — Dkclink in Pkicks of Land and Agricultural Produce— Home Rule— Feeling in Ulsier Rkgabding it.

*• Better a drjwaed country than a ruined country." Sc said a certain s«ion of tho Houso of Orange, when, driven to bay, he proposed to open the dykes in order to destroy his enemies. It would seem ap if the country in which I am at present were going to be not only ruined, but drowned into the bargain. I have been in Ireland now off and on for three or four weeks, and it has rained almost the whole of the time. If the sun deigned to show his face for an hour or two, the fact was remarkable enough to be chronicled when gossipers met. There was good promise of an abundant harvest, but this abominable weather has prevented its realisation. A great portion of the grain has been either totally destroyed or seriously injured. The failure of crop 3 will greatly aggravate the existing discontent, and this, in all conscience, is bad enough. I have seen it asserted more than once that discontent is a term applicable only to a part of Ireland ; that the North— Ulster— is happy and prosperous. That is the exact reverse of the truth. My experience, for the most part, has been con. fined to Ulster, I have talked with do/,en3 of farmers, large and small. Their unanimous testimony is that the existing conditions of life are simply intolerable. Nor ia this the opinion of the Catholic or the nationalist; it is the opinion of staunchest Protestants and Loyalists. It could not well be otherwise. What are the facts ? Everything in the shape of land ani land produce has decreased in value during the last five years. Within a mile of where I write this, a farm of twenty acres—excellent soil, good dwelling, and office-houees — was sold the other day for £20 an acre. A little over twelve years ago another one adjoining it, of similar soil, but with not so good houses upon it, brought £75 per acre. Tho ten years preceding 'SI were the basis on which the judicial rents were fixed. But smce that time agricultural produce of every kind has fallen at least 20 to 40 per cent. Now only about one-third of the Irish farmers had their rents adjudicated upon, and in many instances the law expenses wholly devoured the rent reductions And these reductions were made without the persistent fall in prices since ISBI entering into the calculations of the Conamiasionera. The remaining two-thirds either were not able to incur the expenses of the law courts, or were afraid of incurring the displeasure of their landlord, and not without reason either. A friend of mine, who owns a large farm and whose rent was always punctually paid, went before tho Commissioners to hft-ve it re-valued. He got some slight reduction. He happened to be a few weeks behind with his next gale of rent, and without; any notice whatever he received a process from the agent, and was saddled with expenses ; and this from a landlord who has repute for a certain modicum of generosity. "If they do these things in £he green tree," etc. Now when it is remembered that only one-third of the farmers bave had their rents revised, and that these rent reductions were based on the ten years preceding ISBI, and that since that time a steady decrease of from 20 to 40 per cent. has taken place in agricultural produce of every kind, the position of the tenant farmer is seen to be one of utter extremity. The following example, which I take from an article in the " Pall Mall Gazette," will illustrate the arithmetic of the problem :—: — "A farmer, with a household of six persons, and paying £25 rent, Bold in average years up to 18S4, £100 worth of produce. Deducting his rent, he had £75 to pay taxes, buy clothe 3, flour, sugar, material for repairp, renewal of household implements and stock, etc. A fall in price of 20 per cent, leaves him with an income of only £54 for these purposes, and this sum is insufficient, as he was already near the margin of subsistence, If tho landlord ia to bear the whole losa of £20, the rent must be reduced SO per cent.— it must be £o instead of £25. If the losa i 9 to be equally borne, the rent must be £15, i.e., a reduction of 40 per cent. Where the tenant ia not, as in this case (which is only too common a one), on the very margin of subsistence, it may seem fair to share the loss— a reduction of 40 per cent, in the rent is at any rate the very least that would seem fair." Now tho cases in which any .such reduction has taken place are exceedingly rare. They are not so uncommon in England, but in Ireland we may practically say no ?uch reduction nor anything approaching to it has taken place. Indeed, it ia not a few instances', it ia the other way. Kerry i= probably them"et virulent of Ireland's running gores at present. Well, I read into-daj'.s •'Daily News " (November 2) that a certain Mr Sandes, the agent of Lord Ormathwaite. makes the virtuous boast "that on a rental of £16,000 a- year there was only an increase of £ISO on the new lettinga for a period of ten years onriiug 1881," and yet people wonder that the Kerry farmers are not contented and prosperous. These facts make intelligible and truthful the testimony of the Kerry schoolmaster to the special commissioner of the " Daily News." • * Sir," said tho farmer, " if the farmers could pay their rent they would. Those who say otherwise little know what an eviction means to a tenant. It means leaving the home be has been brought up in ; it means that the few articles of furniture he has are thrown out on the road and broken or spoiled by the rain. It means he becomes a broken man, loeing all seuse of independence and drifting into the position of a labourer who picks up occasional jobs." This same testimony as to the inability of the farmer to pay even the judicial rents waa given the other day by aMr Pinkerton— a tenant farmer, aPresbytorian, and a Loyalist— before the Royal Commission. The gaunt shadow of poverty and starvation ia there darkening the doorway of many a fanner's house this winter, and tho rejection of Mr Parnell's bill may lead to very serious consequences. The action of Sir Redvera Buller in Kerry in demanding that he must be satisfied that a farmer can pay his rent before he will evict trim in the depth of winter indicates that British bayonets are not to be used to fork Out upon tho roadside starving men and

helpless women, who are the victims of law which they had no voice in making, an< I that are cruel and unjust. It is n<H iinpro bable that G rattan's words, spoken lonj ago, may be as true this year as when hi uttered them: "Ireland is a country ill governed and a government ill-obeyed." In these circumstances people are asking "What is to be done?" Ireland is aekec what she wants, and four-fiftha of her peopl< say : "We want Homo Rule ; erive us that, and we will resolve theae difficulties our selves." There is the motive for this demand. Coming down the St. Lawrence to Montreal I conversed with a very intelli erent gentleman from the south of Ireland. He was a Protestant, a Land Leaguer, but not a Home Ruler. These were two questions, he said, that had got confused, "There was a political and an agrarian. If the British Government had fairly faced the land question, there would have been no talk of Home Rule." That, I beliere, is the thing in a nutshell. The Irish farmer is not a politician. His one absorbing thought is settlement upon the land ; for, more than any other country in the world, land in Ireland means life. Ireland's trouble is the land question. Home Rule is but a means to an end, the end being the settlement of the people upon the land. To get this settlement the Irish farmer for the most part has lost faith in the British Parliament. Nor do I much wonder at that, He must be but poorly read in history who does not know that Ireland's wrongs were never righted till, urged by desperation, the Irish were driven into the com mittal of crime. It was the rebellions of '9S aud '4S and Fenianiem that forced attention to the state of the country, and to thesu we owe most of the reforms that have taken place. Nor is it different now. How can a farmer expect to get fair judgment from a Bench all prejudiced against him, and whose interests lie in the contrary direction ? As Mr Arthur Arnold told U 3 the other day, the nobility, who are for the most part member* of the Commons or the Lords, hold about one-third of the whole cultivable land of the United Kingdom. And this is the tribunal to which Lord Salisbury and his Government propose to submit a measure of land law reform. It reminds me of the story of Pat's petition. A clergyman going the rounds of his country parish in the south of Ireland met a fanner who, though residing in a neighbouring parish, was a regular attendant at hie church. Said Pat : "Af ye plase, yer reverence, would y' mind prayin' for a wee drop o' rain next Sunday, for sorra a thing 'ill grow in me little garden wid the present hate o' the weather?" "Sorry to hear that, Pat," replied the divine, " but you ought to ask your own parson, not me." "Ah, sure," spys Pat, " that's jist it. What's the good in axm him to pray for "rain wid them cocks o' hay a standin' on his lawn," and so the Irish farmer has begun to think that there is little use praying longer to a tribunal that has such a large personal interest in withholding the answer to the prayer. In regard to this other fifth there is hesitation. It is chiefly confined to Ulster, and it is a little doubtful of Home Rule. Wot that it is satisfied with the present state of things. Nothing of the sort. Only it is rather inclined i n bear the ills k> has than fly to others it knows not of. The Ulster tenant-farmer is at one with his brother of the South and Westin demanding a radical and rapid reform of the land laws He, perhaps, does not doubt that Home Rule will bring that, but he is afraid that it will bring him much more than that. He ip, for the most part, a Protestant, and he fear? that Home Rule may mean Rome Rnle. That is the bugbear that frightens him. As one of the most intelligent of the claps eaid to me the other day : " I would go in for Home Rule at once were I satisfied that the 'powers conferred upon the Cathoilcs would be wisely and temperately used. " This gentleman was a Presbyterian, and I have reason to know that he spoke the sentiments of the great majority of his co-religioniets. I tried to convince him that his denomination at any rate could be very little worse under Catholic than it had been under Protestant (Episcopalian) ascendancy. The fact is notorious that, though the Presbyterians comprise nearly half the Protestants of Ireland, and are at least equaj to them in intelligence and moral character, yet both they and the Roman Catholics have been persistently excluded from every public office. The magistracy, the Civil Service, the inspectorships of school*, and every office of emolument has been filled by members of the Episcopal Church. No Catholic ascendancy could pay less attention to Presbyterian rights than Prote3tant ascendancy has done ever since its establishment in Ireland. As to a Catholic ascendancy endangering civil and religious liberty, or interfering with the efficiency of the educational system, I, for my part, believe the thing absurd. Nature does not bring back the mastodon, and the modern world cannot be wheeled back three centuries at the bidding of any priestcraft. For myself, 1 believe that the very best means of rendering ineffectual whatever dangerous forces there may be in Irish Catholicism is to grant to its people that liberty which they unanimously aak for, Macaulay points out in one of hie essays that English rule in Ireland Served no other purpcpe than to bind the country more firmly to Rome, and if England wishes to cement thi3 bond etill more firmly she could not take a more effectual way than by refusing the present claim of Ireland to self-government. The history of other countries -Catholic countries— indicates that if eccleaiasticiem should attempt to usurp an unfair control of political questions, it arouses in the very heart of itself energies and forces that defeat its object. In Italy, in France, in Belgium and elsewhere, a liberal party has been created in the Church j itself which is ready to combatanyintolerant measures brought forward by the clergy. But the fact remains none the less that there | is in the breast of the Ulster Protestant a deep - rooted suspicion of his Catholic countryman, It is the landlord's interest to fan this into a fiercer flame, and he certainly is not wasting his opportunities. Even dukes and marquises have suddenly discovered that the Orangeman is a firstrate fellow, and have even so far eaten the leek as to become themselves members of the brotherhood. And once more the Order is being used as a prop to bolster up a rotten and tottering system. And when it- falls, as fall it certainly must, the future historian will have to dig it in its disgrace out of the ruins. It ia pitiable, too, that so' many of the clergy lend themselves to the vain effort of bolstering up a doomed system. Ido not so much wonder at the Episcopalian body doing this, but I regret to find that the Presbyterians

are forgetting their past traditions. In days gone by there were no more loyal supporters of popular rights 1 than the Presbyterian ministers, but in the present contest the most of them are preserving a solemn silence. I find their reasons to be, either that they fear the religious bearing of Home Rule, or to be boycotted by their own congregations. One clergyman, who had the courage ot his convictions, and boldly declared in favour of Uome Rule, has practically been driven from his pulpit by an organised Orange rabble. That sort of thing is a little disconcerting, for, no matter how heroically we may preach of martydom for truth, when the test is personally applied the ease with which we can find exceptions to the rule is remarkable. Those who profess to find other reasons of justification than those of expediency talk of the folly of listening to the followers of Mr Parnell as representing the people o* Ireland, or of handing over the concerns of the nation to Parnell, Bealy, and Co. That, of course, is just in another form the vicious principle that has made the government of Ireland always impossible. It is the assumption that tho Irish people do not know their own wants best. It is nonsense to say that the present representatives do not represent tho people. In my opinion, Ireland for the first time in her history has really got representatives who give voice to what the people honestly desire, for, with Professor Rogers, "I decline to believe that a nation terrorises itself, or that the stupendous majorities by which the eightyfive were returned are an illustration of successful tyranny imposed by an übiquitous organisation." What is the use of extending the franchise and then turning round and telling those who have been elected thereby that they do not represent those who elected them ? The issue of that can only be exasperation and fury. In my opinion, the Protestants of the North have just missed - some of them, at ao> rate — enduring fame. Had thoy possessed the foresight to see in what direction the tide was running, they might have mounted on the wave and guided its course. The national movements of Ireland have for the most part found their strongest directors among Protestants. Even this Home Rule movement took its inception from mon like John Martin, Isaac Butt, Shaw, of Cork, and others. The intelligence and firmness of the Protestant always would give him a commanding place, and had the Protestant leaders had the sagacity to perceive whither this Home Rule agitation would have drifted, and the courage to iaentify themselves with popular rights, they might have tenpered and directed the movement. But they have held back too long, till now, partly in fear and partly in shameful disuppointment, they stand vainly protesting against an incoming flood which they can neither hinder nor control ; for few doubt the final issue of this question. Unless Lord Randolph Churchill suddenly cuts away the ground from under Mr Parnell's feet by a Radical Land Bill, Home Rule in Ireland is a certain issue in the near future. 1 remember Sir Stafford Northcote — as he was then— telling the people ot Aberdeen, when the last Gladstonian Government took office, that you may "expect rough weather when you see the new moon with the old moon in her arms." This he said in reference to the Liberals stealing the Conservative policy. But when "Randy" Churchill, as che masses call him, haa "bolted" the whole Radical programme, there is no telling what may happen. Only one thing is sure, the days of landlordism in Ireland are numbered ; and for that matter they are numbered all over these kingdoms. The law which permits a small class of men to monopolise the means and instruments of labour and of life in the State, and compels the mass of the people to pay for the use of these — nay, even to create the value of these— and then be forced to pay for this increased value, is inherently unjust, and, as Wendell Phillips once told the American people : " You may build your capital of granite, and pile it as high as the Rocky Mountains, but if it is founded on or mixed up with iniquity the pulse of a girl will beat it down." Irish landlords know perfectly well that when the Irish people are accorded the liberty to make their own laws the system which has enabled them to terrorise and pauperise the country for centuries will be blown to all the winds. They are fighting a battle, therefore, for life, and they will fight fiercely ; and they will be aided in this by their brethern in England and Scotland. For the Irish problem is only the first issue of a larger one. Already the same fight is being begun in Scotland, in Wales, and in some parts of England. The forces, meantime, ace on the side of the privileged class, and the gleam of British bayonets may for a little overawe the half-starving Scottish crofter or his more miserable brother of the south and west of Ireland. But physical force settles nothing permanently. "The sword," ac Victor Hugo finely sayp, "is but a hideous flash in the darkness, while right is an eternal ray." English statesmen have now offered them an opportunity of conciliating Irish antipathies and creating a loyal and contented people. There is just at present a lull in the out rages which unjust laws have created. Since Mr Gladstone announced his adhesion to the Home Rule movement, the Irieh peasant's hope has revived, and wli9n he reads in to-day's papers the account of tho great National Liberal Convention yester day at Leod*, in which the real Liberal party enthusiastically renewed its expres sinn of confidence in its great leader, he will be still further cheered. But it must not be supposed that hie present tone of content is due to eatisf action with the conditions of life in this country, and that, therefore, no change in the law is necessary. There is a danger that this may be so. Lord Randolph Churchill has said that " an absolutely certain thing is this : we do not mean to be hasty or hurried in dealing with tho question of local government in Ireland." If he does not, and if because the returns of crime have diminished therefore reforms may be indefinitely postponed, then, as Mr Morley said yesterday, "Ireland will once more have to learn the cruel, the fatal, the desperate lesßon which the party of order have a thousand times tried to bring home to their minds before, that everything is conceded to agitation and outrage, and nothing is conceded to justice and tranquillity."

Observakt and inquiring tourist—" There does not appear to be much farm work doing about here ?" Peasant— "No, sir." Tourist—" .How do the people live— on potatoes and buttermilk, I suppose?" Peasant (brightly)— " No, sir; on the visitors."