GLADSTONIAN LEGISLATION
Although the exact measure of my appreciation of the Irish policy of the
most dangerous Englishman of the nineteenth century has already been
clearly indicated by casual remarks in previous chapters, that will not
absolve me from duly setting forth some sketch of the inestimable amount
of evil which resulted from the interest he unfortunately took in my
unhappy land.
If Napoleon was the scourge of Europe, Mr. Gladstone was the most
malevolent imp of mischief that ever ruined any one country, and I am
heartily grieved that that country should have been mine.
It is so difficult to get English people to take any interest in Irish
topics that I fully expect this chapter will be skipped by most of my
readers east of Dublin. Yet if any will read these few pages, they will
get as clear a view of the harm one man can do a whole land as by wading
through hundreds of volumes, for I am giving them the concentrated
knowledge I have accumulated by years devoted to profound study of the
subject.
The course of history may be taken up almost on the morrow of the
famine, for potatoes began to be a scarce crop again in 1850, yet the
country was improving rapidly, and the relations between landlord and
tenant were as cordial as in any part of the world.
So they continued in absolute amity until what is virtually universal
suffrage was introduced and the ignoramus became the tool of every
political knave.
Mr. Gladstone stated that he brought in the Irish Church Act to pacify
the country in 1868, when the land was as peaceful as English pastures
on a Sunday evening. He must really have done so to propitiate English
dissenters, for no one in Ireland appeared to want it.
By this Act a resident gentleman was taken away from every parish in
Ireland, whereby the evils of absentee landlordism were gravely
enhanced.
Mr. Gladstone called it an act of sublime justice from England to
Ireland. Previously, in virtue of ancient treaties commencing as far
back as the reigns of William and Mary, the English Government was
giving Presbyterians a grant--called Regium Donum--of £70,000 a year,
and by a more recent arrangement was giving Maynooth a grant of £24,000,
but that Whig Government actually paid them off out of the spoils of the
Irish Church, thereby saving the British Exchequer £94,000 a year.
And if this be an act of justice, then Aristides can be classed among
hypocritical swindlers.
It must be borne in mind that when William Pitt caused the Act of Union
to be passed in Parliament, the union of the Churches was a fundamental
feature, and this, indeed, was the main inducement held out to
Protestants to promote the Union.
Surely it cannot be held to be a valid Union when the principal
consideration in it is set aside, to say nothing of increasing the
taxation by two million sterling a year more than was ever contemplated
by the Act. This was clearly borne out by a Royal Commission composed
mostly of Englishmen and presided over by Mr. Childers, an earnest
politician and an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Catholic priests who expected that their Church would be established
were disappointed, while the landlords, who were generally Protestants,
had henceforth to support their clergy and at the same time to pay
tithes to the State.
As Irish taxation increased 50 per cent, while that of England only
increased 18 per cent., the Irish people did not find Mr. Gladstone's
Act soothing or profitable.
His next perpetration was the Land Act of 1870, whereby he provided that
no landlord could turn out his tenant without paying him for all his
improvements (even if these had been done without the knowledge or
sanction of the landlord) and giving the tenant a compensation in money
equal to about one-fourth of the fee-simple.
This Act might have been all right in principle, but it was useless in
practice, and the compensation made to the County Court Judge for
adjudicature came to far more than the amount awarded.
This is easily accounted for, thus:--
You might as well bring in an Act of Parliament to prevent people
cutting off their own noses.
No sane person does such a thing, and no landlord ever turned out an
improving tenant.
But the Irish tenants, having almost the sole representation of the
country in their hands, returned a body of representatives pledged to
the confiscation of landed property; and in order to keep his party in
power by securing their votes, Mr. Gladstone brought in the Land Act of
1881.
I heard him introduce the motion in the House of Commons, and his speech
was a truly marvellous feat of oratory. He was interrupted on all sides
of the House, and in a speech of nearly five hours in length never once
lost the thread of his discourse.
As far as I could judge, he never even by accident let slip one word of
truth.
When the Act passed, Mr. Gladstone anticipated that eight
sub-commissioners would do the work. This number very soon ran up to one
hundred sub-commissioners and more than twenty County Court valuers.
The result is that every tenant has been running down his land and
letting it go out of cultivation, for the tenants know the commissioners
value the ground as they find it, and a premium is thus, of course, put
on neglecting the soil.
To show the system on which the valuation was done, many cases have been
known of the commissioners arriving to value a property after three
o'clock on a December afternoon.
It is a positive fact that there are professional experts who obtain
substantial fees for showing tenants the speediest methods of damaging
their own land.
All the same I cannot help thinking their services are a matter of
supererogation, for a recalcitrant Irish tenant in the South and West
needs instruction in no branch of villainy.
On one of Lord Kenmare's estates, I executed drainage works costing over
£200. These were dependent upon sluices to keep out the tide at high
water. A few days before the land was to be inspected, the tenants put
bushes in the sluices, let the tide in and flooded the whole land.
And then a prating, mendacious local schoolmaster began comparing these
villains to the patriotic Dutch who flooded their land rather than
permit it to be conquered by the national foe.
I could give scores of such instances of wilful destruction of property
for the purpose of obtaining a reduction.
Here is one.
A tenant near Blarney, in County Cork, was seen to be ploughing up a
valuable water meadow.
When asked by a gentleman why he was injuring his land, he replied
without hesitation that he was going to get his rent fixed, and
immediately afterwards he should lay it down again as a water meadow.
It is scarcely credible how great was the amount of perjury that this
Act brought into the country.
A tenant on a property to which I was agent, whose rent was £6 a year,
swore he expended £395 on improvements and all that it was worth
afterwards was £4, 10s. He received the implicit credit of the court.
According to the laws of the Roman Catholic Church perjury in a court of
justice is a reserved sin for which absolution can only be given by a
bishop or by priests specially appointed for that purpose.
One priest applied to the bishop for plenary powers, and said the bishop
to him:--
'Are the people so generally bad in your parish?'
'It's the fault of the laws, my lord,' replied the priest.
'What laws?' asked the bishop.
'Firstly, under the Crimes Act, my poor people have to swear they do not
know the moonlighters that come to the house, or they would be murdered.
'Secondly, under the Arrears Act, they have to swear they are worth
nothing in the world or they would not get the Government money.
'Thirdly, under the Land Act, while they have to swear up their own
improvements, they must also swear down the value of the land, or they
will get no reductions.
'So you see, my lord, the sin lies at the door of those who made the
infamous laws which lead weak sinners into temptation they cannot be
expected to overcome.'
The bishop said nothing, but he gave the priest all the powers he
desired.
I myself heard this story from a parish priest who was present, and as I
have several times told it to different people, it may have found its
way into print, though I have no recollection of ever seeing it in black
and white.
Allusion having just been made to the Arrears Act, it may be here
opportune to point out that this was the next step in Mr. Gladstone's
long sequence of Irish mismanagement. This iniquitous measure provided
that no matter how great the arrears owed by the tenant, by lodging one
year's rent another could be obtained from the Government, and the
landlord was compelled to wipe out the balance. So that if Jack, Tom,
and James were all tenants on town land, should Jack be an honest man he
obtained no redress, whereas if Tom and James were hardened defaulters
they obtained the complete settlement of all their arrears.
To obtain the grant of a year's rent from Government, the tenant had to
swear as to his assets and also as to the selling value of his farm.
Here is an illustration which came under my own observation.
A tenant named Richard Sweeney, whose rent was £48 a year, owed three
years' rent. He paid one year, the Government provided another, and the
landlord had to forgive the third.
To obtain this result, Sweeney swore that the selling value of his farm
was _nil_, and he received a receipt in full.
A few weeks later he served me--as agent for the landlord--with notice
that he had sold his interest in the property for £630.
That is not the end of my story.
The purchaser was a man named Murphy, and a very few years afterwards,
upon the ground that the rent was too dear, he took the farm for which
he had paid £630 to Sweeney into the Land Courts and got the rent
reduced to £36.
The absurdity of this system was well brought out before the Fry
Commission, when one high-commissioner and a sub-commissioner both said
that in valuing the land they took into consideration the tenant's
occupation interest.
The reader will see the way this works out, if he will accept the very
simple hypothetical case of two tenants holding land to the worth of £40
each, and one of them only paying £20 a year rent. When they both took
their cases into the Land Court, the man paying the lower rent of £20
would obtain the larger reduction, because he had the greater
occupation.
These facts will show that a Purchase Bill was an absolute necessity.
Lord Dufferin truly remarked that landlord and tenant were both in the
same bed, and Mr. Gladstone thought to settle their disputes by giving
the tenant a larger share than he had ever had before. But the tenant
considered that as he had obtained that concession by fraud and
violence, if he could only give one effective kick more, he would put
the landlord on the floor for the rest of the term of their national
life.
When introducing the Land Act of 1870, Mr. Gladstone proved himself if
not an Irish statesman, an admirable prophet, for he denounced in
anticipation exactly what the effect of the Land Act of 1881 would be.
In 1870, he prospectively criticised such an institution as the Land
Court, which in 1881 he proposed, with its power to give a 'judicial
rent.'
'But it is suggested we should establish, permanently and positively, a
power in the hands of the State to reduce excessive rents. Now I should
like to hear a careful argument in support of that plan. I wish at all
events to retain at all times a judicial habit of not condemning a thing
utterly until I have heard what is to be said for it; but I own I have
not heard, I do not know, and I cannot conceive, what is to be said for
the prospective power to reduce excessive rents. If I could conceive a
plan more calculated than everything else, first of all, for throwing
into confusion the whole economical arrangements of the country;
secondly, for driving out of the field all solvent and honest men who
might be bidders for farms; thirdly, for carrying widespread
demoralisation throughout the whole mass of the Irish people, I must say
it is this plan.'
And again:--
'We are not ready to accede to a principle of legislation by which the
State shall take into its own hands the valuation of rent throughout
Ireland. I say, "take into its own hands" because it is perfectly
immaterial whether the thing shall be done by a State officer forming
part of the Civil Service, or by an arbitration acting under State
authority, or by any other person invested by the law with power to
determine on what terms as to rent every holding in Ireland shall be
held.'
This categorical denunciation of the principle which he was then asked,
and which he peremptorily refused to sanction, was not enough for Mr.
Gladstone, for the records of debate show he went farther, but enough
has been cited to show that never was prophecy more fully fulfilled.
Outrage followed outrage with a rapidity unequalled in Europe, and that
in a country which previous to his remedial measures had practically
been unstained by an agrarian outrage for fifty years.
It would certainly be both remiss of me, and altogether below the
character which I trust I have acquired for honest plain speaking, if I
omitted to give my views upon Mr. Wyndham's Act, for those readers who
regard my book as something more than a storehouse of anecdotes--and
since it is written at all, I maintain it claims to be more than
that--having noticed the freedom with which I have spoken of previous
English legislation for Ireland, may very naturally think I should be
begging the question of the hour, if I did not offer a few observations
on the latest development of the Irish question.
I must emphatically repeat what I have already asserted:--that the Acts
of Mr. Gladstone rendered a Purchase Bill inevitable, and it fell to Mr.
Wyndham's lot to formulate the scheme which has now become law.
Mr. Wyndham's Act is a great one for Ireland, because where a tenant
previously paid £100 a year rent, all he will have to pay--even at
twenty-four years' purchase--is £80 a year, and at that rate with the
bonus the landlord obtains twenty-seven years' purchase. But this scale
is a little halcyon in most instances.
It should prove a boon to the country, and it is the necessary outcome
of the Land Act of 1881, by which rents were cut down by commissioners,
whose means of living depended on the reductions they made.
And to make this state of things yet more remarkable, there were two
courts established for fixing rates. The one consisted of
sub-commissioners, who were paid by the year, and the other was that of
the County Court judge, who was wholly dependent on a valuer paid by the
day.
So, whoever cut down the most earned the most.
A valuer in Limerick was remonstrated with for cutting down local rents
so low, and he replied:--
'It is all for the good of trade, for it will bring every tenant into
the Court.'
And so it actually did, for that Court very shortly afterwards was chock
full of cases.
My own opinion is that the Wyndham Act would have been far more
beneficial, if the Government had given the tenant a free grant of some
of the purchase money, and insisted on his finding some more of it
himself, whereby would have been created a deeper interest in his land
than is now inspired in his breast by the mere transference of his lease
from his old landlord to the Government.
I made this remark to an Englishman at the Carlton Club, and he said to
me that, according to his view, England should lend whatever money was
wanted but give no free grant.
I replied:--
'A poor man from Kerry came to my house in London, and asked for the
loan of a pound. I declined to lend him the sovereign, but I did lend
him half a crown, and as he bolted to America the very next day, I think
I had the best of the bargain.'
My friend accepted the analogy and dropped the subject.
That was far more tactful on his part than the conduct of the English
Government, for the different Acts of Parliament relating to Ireland
have had the effect of rendering the feelings between landlord and
tenant much worse than they were before.
And the Act of 1881, which provided that landlord and tenant should have
a lawsuit every fifteen years, brought the feeling up to boiling pitch.
Now the Government inherits all this hatred by proposing to be the sole
landlord in Ireland. Therefore, England is reaping the whirlwind where
Mr. Gladstone sowed the wind.
This does not appear to me to be sound statesmanship. An open hatred of
the Government has been instilled into the brain of thousands of Irish
children side by side with a more hypocritical hatred of the landlord.
Now that these two are to be combined in one passion, and that directed
against the receiver of rent, matters do not present a promising
outlook.
If the Government sell up those tenants who do not pay rent in years to
come, no Irish occupiers of the property will be obtainable.
If English tenants be imported, the latter had better insist on coats of
mail for themselves, and on life insurance policies in favour of the
nearest relatives they leave behind in England.
That reminds me of a story.
Sir Denis Fitzpatrick and his daughter were making a tour of the Kerry
fjords some years ago, and the lady asked a boatman on Caragh Lake, what
would happen to a tenant who took an evicted farm.
The reply was:--
'I don't think he'd do it again, Miss, leastways it's in the next world
alone he'd have the chance of making such a fool of himself.'
This may be commended to any unsophisticated English who contemplate
Hibernian immigration as a prospective way of cheaply obtaining that
once popular bait of Mr. Jesse Collins, three acres and a cow.
Here is another aspect of not paying rent to Government, which would
occur to no one unacquainted with Ireland, but is quite
characteristic:--
Suppose twenty men were tenants on a townland; one would pay, and the
other nineteen after being evicted would also squat down on his patch.
Unless caretakers at a cost of about three times the rent were put in
under excessive police protection, all the nineteen farms would promptly
become derelict.
It would have been far better if the Government had given a free grant
of one quarter of the purchase money, had compelled the tenant to
himself find another quarter, and had lent the remaining half for a
comparatively short term, say twenty-five years.
Then the tenant would have had genuine interest in the redemption of his
own property.
But, asks the English tourist impressed by the apparent beggarliness of
all he sees, how could the tenant procure a quarter of the money?
Naturally it would be alleged by the agitators that he could not. All
the same you may confidently contradict any such denial as that.
It is clear that almost any tenant could get the money, if you bear in
mind that though rents are so reduced, the most unimproving tenant can
get from ten to twenty years' purchase for the good-will of his farm.
Of course, just now the old order is changing considerably in Ireland,
but the loss of their old landlords is not appreciated by the better
class of tenants, though the good have of course to suffer for the
bad--a thing even better known in my country than elsewhere. I heard an
interesting confirmation of this from a lady of my acquaintance, who
having asked a respectable woman what had become of her son, received
the reply:--
'Ah, for sure, he has got a situation with a farmer.'
'Well, that's a good start in life, is it not?' asked my friend, to
which the woman retorted in melancholy accents:--
'That may be, but my family have always been rared (_i.e._ reared) on
the gentry until now,' thereby expressing a feeling very prevalent in
Ireland to-day.
The Home Rulers allege that these high prices which are paid for the
good-will of land are attributable to two causes:--
_(a)_ Excess of competition for land.
_(b)_ Irish returning from America.
Both these reasons are absurd.
When the population of Ireland was nearly eight millions, these prices
could not be obtainable, nor anything like them, while to-day the
population is only four millions. Unless the returning emigrants thought
they were obtaining good value for their money, they would hardly
abandon a country--the United States--where they can get land for
nothing.
The enormous increase in the Irish Savings Banks, as well as the
deposits in other Irish Banks, must be almost entirely derived from the
savings of the farmers. The landlords have been ruined by the Land Act;
labourers have no money to spare; and traders will not leave their money
idle at the small rate of interest credited.
If the farmers thought they had better means of using the money, they
would withdraw it, and they are without doubt as well aware as I am how
they can do the English Government in the future, for if there is any
roguery unknown to them, it is infinitesimal.
I cannot say that I think many landlords will leave Ireland in
consequence of the Wyndham Act. The few who will go are those who are
glad to be quit at any price, and to be free to pack out of the country.
But many a landlord will be far more comfortable on his own estate, when
he has rid himself of all his tenants.
One feature of this curious Act is that the Geraldines have got rid of
the last of their property, and escaped all the forfeitures.
As for the sporting rights, far too much fuss has been made over them.
Except where there are plantations or good fishing, they are of very
little value one way or the other. The Act will not affect the hunting.
Small Irish farmers like to see the hunt almost as much as the hunting
set themselves like to participate in it.
Of course, too, the Act ought to be popular in Ireland, because it is
taking so much money out of England.
A point I wish to emphasise is one about which there has been a great
deal of misconception.
A considerable amount of capital has been made out of the depreciation
of agricultural produce in Ireland as compared with England. But Ireland
is a stock-producing country and not an agricultural country in the
strict sense, for the cultivation of wheat in Ireland has long since
ceased to exist. The true relation may be seen in the fact that in
England the difficulty of getting store-cattle was a loss to farmers,
whereas it has been a decided gain to farmers in Ireland--though they
are not best pleased when you impress the fact on them.
Mr. Finlay Dun in _Landlords and Tenants in Ireland in 1881_ cites some
examples which may be apt to-day when we are considering Mr. Wyndham's
Act.
He writes on page 64:--
'Kilcockan parish between Lismore and Youghal was in great part disposed
of in the Landed Estates Court thirty years ago. It was bought, some of
it by occupiers, some of it by shopkeepers and attorneys. Rents have
been raised, and there is not much appearance of prosperity. Newtown,
for several generations the fee-simple property of a family of the name
of Nason, after the famine of 1846, was cut up and sold; the family
residence is in ruin. At Lower Curryglass, a few miles east of Lismore,
a good farm of five hundred acres, belonging to a family who have been
obliged to leave it, bears sad evidence of neglect; the good old
deserted manor-house, the farm buildings, and a dozen cottages in the
village are falling to pieces. Contrary to what might be anticipated,
some of the smaller proprietors in this district have been strenuous
supporters of the Land League, although it is to be hoped that they
repudiate the destruction of the cattle on the land of Mr. Grant, which
were stabbed, and some of them drowned in the river. Mr. Grant had come
under the ban of the League for evicting a dissipated bankrupt tenant,
whose debts to the extent of two hundred pounds he had paid, and who
would have been reinstated, if there had been the remotest prospect of
reformed habits or of getting clear of his difficulties. Such acts
appear to justify the statement, "that Irishmen don't know what they
want, and won't be satisfied until they get it."'
God knows we have waded knee deep in blood of men, and domestic animals
since that was written, yet to-day are we any nearer the final solution
of the Irish difficulties? In my opinion, certainly not.