THE STATE OF KERRY
It has been stated that it is only within the last forty years that the
bulk of the people of Ireland, long outside the pale of the ballot-box,
have actively entered political life. This is quite true.
The whole of the Home Rule troubles followed the presentation of
practically universal suffrage to the half-educated and
over-enthusiastic Irish, who are easily led away, apt to believe
mob-orators, and, by inherited instinct, to go against the Government.
What the effect of universal suffrage in India would be it is not my
business to estimate. Still, the analogy of what the ballot-paper
provided in Ireland, if applied to the teeming population of our
Oriental Empire, suggests a pandemonium to which the horrors of the
Mutiny are but a mere scream of agony.
The ballot transformed Ireland; or rather, it permitted the worst
passions of the most ignorant to be played upon by interested
adventurers, when the political power of Ireland had passed for ever out
of the hands of the restraining classes. Democracy spelt anarchy, and
the word patriotism was degraded in a way that had no parallel since the
French Revolution.
The first outward and visible sign was the creation of the Irish Home
Rule party, which constituted itself separate and distinct from the rest
of the House of Commons, the standard of which the new gang was to
debase. Nor did they rest content until it became the scene of faction
fights and organised obstruction in combination with the flagrant
violation of all decencies of language and behaviour.
Members were returned for Irish constituencies who had been convicts;
others came who richly deserved imprisonment for life. They instigated
murders, and clamoured because the murderers were not regarded as
heroes; or if they were hung, canonised them as martyrs. They attempted
to prostitute the law to their own base standard of political morality.
They assiduously laboured to render life valueless in Ireland and
property worthless, whilst no deed was too cowardly, no atrocity too
barbarous, for them to praise. They alone in modern times warred against
women and children. Animals were the dumb victims of the inhuman
ferocity they in no way tried to check, and they effectively taught the
receptive Irish millions that a British Government could be coerced into
giving what was demanded provided a sufficient number of crimes created
a holocaust large enough to intimidate the weak-kneed at St. Stephen's.
But Mr. Parnell and the Land League would all have been promptly reduced
to the pitiful unimportance from which they had so noisily emerged if it
had not been for Mr. Gladstone.
The root of English politics has been party government--'where all are
for a party, and none are for the State,' to reverse Macaulay's famous
line. Now the Irish vote of sixty was a solid asset, capable in many
cases of weighing down one side of the political scale. It was obvious
that the votes would be unscrupulously given, and Mr. Gladstone bid
higher than the Tories. Literally the necessary parliamentary machinery
for the government of the United Kingdom was clogged by the
Nationalists, who brought obstruction to a fine art, and it was Mr.
Gladstone who always gave in when the Irish outcry would have stimulated
an honest man to avail himself of all loyal forces which law and the
common weal provided.
Long before this the Irish political agitator had set himself to
embitter the relations existing between landlord and tenant. An
Englishman goes into Parliament for various motives; an Irishman for his
living. If he did not outshout his neighbour, if he were not implicitly
obedient to Mr. Parnell, if he did not arouse the worst passions of the
worst people in his constituency, he was promptly dismissed.
To do them justice, the Irish members gave such an exhibition of
blackguardism as has no parallel on earth, though it earned but the
mildest rebuke from their obsequious ally, Mr. Gladstone.
In 1869, for example, before this balloting away of all that was
creditable to Ireland, the relations between landlord and tenant were of
the most kindly nature. The leading landlords of Kerry generally
represented the county in Parliament with uniform decency and occasional
brilliance, while larger sums were borrowed and expended by the
landlords under the Land Improvement Act than were spent in the same way
in any other county. I can prove that the principal landowner in
Kerry--Lord Kenmare--expended a greater sum in ten years on his estates
than he received out of them, though I cannot say he ever found out for
himself that it was better to give than to receive.
For fifty years prior to what Mr. Gladstone was pleased to call his
'remedial legislation,' Kerry was unstained by agrarian crime; all
things went on smoothly, and a number of railways were constructed with
guaranteed capital, half of which was contributed by the landlords,
although they received no benefit from the increased prices of farm
produce caused by railway communication. The Board of Works returns show
that the money borrowed by Kerry landlords under the different Land
Improvement Acts amounted to almost half a million, and yet the
deductions made under the Land Act were greater in Kerry than in other
counties.
Here is an instance from my own experience.
I purchased from the Government in 1879 an estate, the rental of which
was £517, 2s. 4d.; it was considered so cheaply let that the majority of
the tenants offered twenty-seven years' purchase for their farms. I
borrowed from the Government and expended on drainage £1120, 14s. 11d.
Then the Commissioners under the Land Act reduced the rental to £495,
10s. 6d., and the Government which sold me the estate continued to
compel me to pay interest on the amount borrowed, although by its own
legislation I was deprived of any advantage resulting from the outlay.
The rental of Kerry in 1870 was considerably less than it had been forty
years previously, and higher prices were paid for the fee-simple of land
than were offered in any other part of Ireland. But Mr. Gladstone's
'remedial manoeuvres' changed the country and the people.
Demoralising bribes to the Irish nation frittered away the proceeds of
the plunder of the Irish Church. A notable instance was a million under
the Arrears Act, the principle of which was that no honest tenant who
had paid his rent could derive any benefit from it, but that any
drunkard or squanderer who had not paid his rent might have it paid for
him by the Government on swearing that he was unable to pay.
Here is an instance that occurred on an estate under my management.
A tenant, whose yearly rent was £48, had one year's rent paid by
Government and another year's rent given up by his landlord, on his
swearing that the selling value of his farm was _nil_; ten weeks
afterwards he served me with a notice, as required by the statute, that
he had sold the interest of the farm for £670.
Again, there was a tenant who swore that he had expended £513, 14s. 6d.
in permanent improvements, and that after this expenditure the fair
letting value of the farm was only £17, though the original rent was
£26, 4s.
How could I blame an ignorant peasantry for making false statements,
when laws were framed by the leaders of public opinion in England which
released the Irish tenants from every moral obligation, and made their
assumed responsibilities and agreements a dead letter; while orators,
living on the wages of patriotism, were allowed to preach sedition and
plunder to an excitable people? The result was that the work of
demoralisation made rapid progress, perjury became a joke, assassination
was merely 'removal,' and men who had been brutally murdered were said
to have met with an accident.
I have already shown how apt a prophet Mr. Gladstone was in his forecast
in the House of Commons in 1870, and one more quotation adds testimony
to his inspiration--though from what direction it came I will not linger
to inquire:--
'Compulsory valuation and fixity of tenure would bring about total
demoralisation and a Saturnalia of crime.'
Exactly.
Mr. Laing, formerly M.P. for Orkney, in a magazine article defended the
'Plan of Campaign' as an innocent attempt to defend the weak against the
strong, and as having been adopted only on estates where rents were too
high, in fact, as the result of high rents. As a matter of fact, in
Orkney the rents advanced 194 per cent., and during the same period in
Kerry they dwindled. He also asserted that the Irish tenants'
improvements had been confiscated by the landlords as the tenant
improved.
Certainly the law did not prevent them increasing the rent; but,
unfortunately for the reasoning of Mr. Laing, and his taking for granted
imaginary 'confiscations,' figures most decidedly prove that the
landlords did not use any such power. The rentals have steadily
decreased while the landlords were borrowing and expending nearly half a
million in my own county.
This fact is conclusively demonstrated by the Government returns.
As to the National League--with all its paraphernalia of boycotting,
shooting from behind a hedge, merciless beating, shooting in the legs,
and other similar variations of Irish Home Rule, on which I shall dwell
in a later chapter--being only a protector of the weak tenant against
the hard landlord, I think one fact will prove more forcibly than any
argument the fallacy of such an assertion.
There were two estates in Kerry let at a much lower rate than any others
in the county--those of Lord Cork and Colonel Oliver.
Colonel Oliver's agent was the only one fired at in Kerry in 1886, and
Lord Cork's agent was the only one obliged to employ over two hundred
police to protect him in endeavouring to recover in 1887 rent which was
due in 1884. This rent was due on land let at considerably under the
Poor Law valuation, and the rents were only half what was paid in 1860.
These cases afford a decided proof that the Land or National League
carries on its government irrespective of high or low rents, and the
'Plan of Campaign' is worked according as the local branches of the
League have disciplined or terrorised the inhabitants of a district, the
orders from 'headquarters' depending on the probability of success.
I should like to retort on Mr. Laing that, while the evidence before the
Land Commissioner proved the rental of Ireland was diminishing, that of
the country where his own property lay increased to an unusual degree. I
do not say the landlords confiscated the tenants' improvements, possibly
they made none. But figures are hard facts, and they prove three
things:--
First, that Kerry landlords spent £453,539 on improvements. Secondly,
that the rental of Kerry was lower in 1880 than in 1840. Thirdly, that
the rental of Orkney increased 194 per cent. during that time.
On the south-west coast of Kerry lie the Blasquets, a group of islands
the property of Lord Cork, one of them inhabited by some twenty-five
families. The old rental was £80, which was regularly paid. This was
reduced by Lord Cork to £40, the Government valuation being £60. Now
this island reared about forty milch cows, besides young cattle and
sheep, and at the period when might meant right in Ireland the
inhabitants, having some surplus stock, took possession of another
island to feed them on.
This island was let to another man, but he was not able to resist the
tenants any more than the mouse nibbling a piece of cheese is able to
fight a cat.
For ten years up to 1887 those tenants paid no poor rate. They
successfully resisted the payment of county cess, to the detriment of
their fellow taxpayers, and they only paid one half year's rent out of
six, and that not until they had been served with writs. And these
people, in the year 1886, sent a memorial to the Government to save them
from starvation.
This is a remarkable case, and proves that poverty and the cry of
starvation are not always the result of rents and taxes, as the Irish
patriots and their English separatist allies so frequently assert.
I am going to quote a colloquy overheard at a Kerry fair to show how
deeply the teaching of Messrs. Parnell, Gladstone, Dillon, Morley,
Davitt, Biggar, and Company has taken root in the Irish mind.
Jim from Castleisland meeting Mick from Glenbeigh, asks:--
'Well, Mick, an' how are ye getting on?'
'Illigant, glory be to the Saints.'
'How's that, Mick? Sure, prices is low.'
'True for you, Jim, prices is low; but what we _has_ we _has_, for we
pays nobody.'
And to that I will add another observation.
Somebody asked me:--
'If Ireland were to get Home Rule, what would become of the agitator?'
I replied:--
'He would be called a reformer, unless it paid him better to clamour for
a fresh Union. He'd sell all his patriotism for five shillings, and his
loyalty could be bought by a few glasses of whisky.'
And that's the whole truth of the matter.