CONCLUSION.
Here I must end these extracts from my travelling diary. Of what use
could it be to continue noting day by day all that I saw in Ireland?
Besides, the inquiry, summary as it is, to which I devoted myself, has
left me with an impression of profound melancholy. Every one knows the
traps in which one sees the captive mice beating against the wire that
ornaments one of the extremities, and in their desperate efforts to
obtain their freedom they thrust and wound themselves against the bars
of their cage. On this side they see the light; here they fancy they
have the best chance of escape. They can never succeed, for the door
lies exactly at the other end.
The poor Irish--so interesting, so sympathetic--are a little like them.
They, too, are exhausting their strength in despairing efforts to
escape from a misery that is only too real; but for them, too, the way
out is not on the side where they are seeking it.
When we see, on one hand, the great fermentation going on in the lower
classes of the population, and, on the other, the Government utterly
incapable of restoring order, one is tempted to believe that a bloody
revolution is about to break out. This seems to be the only logical
solution which the situation admits of. Evidently, so they say, the
heads of this powerful organisation which binds the whole country, wish
to break out; they form their lists and keep their followers in working
order. The daily skirmishes which one hears perpetually discussed can
have but that end; they keep the hand in whilst waiting for action.
As soon as a favourable opportunity offers, they will call the whole
population of five million souls to arms; they are only waiting for the
signal. An immense popular uprising will take place immediately, and if
the English rule is to be re-established in the country, it will only
be after a long and bloody war.
This reasoning appears well founded, because in Greece, in Poland, and
everywhere that a conquering people have been unable to assimilate with
the conquered, the same results have always followed. I am, however,
quite convinced that it is absolutely false as regards Ireland. In
every son of Erin there is the making of a conspirator. At all times
conspiracy has been an element where they have been as much at their
ease as fish in water. But amongst them a conspirator finds great
difficulty in transforming himself into a rebel. Why is this? I cannot
tell. It is certainly not for want of courage. As soldiers, the Irish
have no need to prove their abilities. And yet we have only to consult
their national history to perceive that of all the rebellions they
have attempted not one has been serious. Towards the end of the last
century, when Brittany and Vendée rose against the Republic, they
had no resources of any kind, and they had to deal with a military
power that had routed all the armies in Europe. Six months later they
placed 80,000 men in the field, who, at first armed with sticks, used
them with such effect that at the end of a few days they were all
armed with guns taken from their enemies. For some years they held in
check all the forces that were sent against them. Towards the same
date the Irish made several attempts at insurrection. One of them was
even aided by a detachment of French troops being landed. The English
sent very insignificant troops to oppose them. Yet after a few days
they had overcome the insurgents without the latter being able to
form a military force capable of resisting one battalion of infantry
in the open field. If the Irish showed themselves so powerless when
circumstances were all in their favour, what chance of success have
they now?
But in order that a nation should throw itself headlong into a
rebellion of this kind, it must have a definite object in view. Greece
and Poland were determined to regain their independence, and knew what
they would do with this independence if they succeeded in winning
it. Now, unfortunately, it is very different with the Irish. Their
political men are quite aware of the facts of the case. Independent
Ireland is an impossibility.
First of all, whilst England possesses a soldier or a crown she will
never consent to the separation. It is a question of life or death for
her. Imagine a war with France and Ireland allied, what would become of
her?
But there is another reason, and this is an economic one, why the Irish
themselves will never push matters to extremities. They know perfectly
well that the day after their independence was acknowledged, they must
either conquer England or else throw themselves upon her mercy. How
could they support a separate State? They would require money to live
with, and this money can only be found by selling their produce. Now
if the English can buy the cattle, pigs and butter they require from
all parts of the globe, the Irish themselves can only sell the cattle,
pigs, and butter, which are their sole produce, in England; for they
could hardly aspire to sending their pigs to Chicago or their butter to
Isigny. They would be absolutely at England’s mercy.
As long therefore as they cannot transport their country some hundred
miles further west, the Irish must be content and resign themselves to
the fact that Ireland can only be an appendage to England. Equality
between the two countries cannot exist. If the Irish succeeded in
conquering England the seat of government might be at Dublin; the
greater part of the taxes paid by the English would be spent there,
in the same way that a large portion of Irish taxes are now spent
in London. But until they feel strong enough to bring this great
enterprise to a successful issue, they must bear their share of a
situation which, after all, is not worse than that of the inhabitants
of Bordeaux or Dijon, whose taxes are in a great measure spent in Paris.
It may be objected that without going as far as actual separation,
which, in fact, no one asks for, because it is manifestly out of
the question, they may ask, as Mr. Gladstone does, for a relative
separation.
I have already stated at some length and several times in the course
of this work, the reasons which lead me to believe that even with this
amelioration a separation would be disastrous for Ireland; it would
result in all capital being withdrawn from Ireland, for it is now
almost exclusively in English hands.
In my opinion Mr. Gladstone has been very wrong in encouraging the
Irish to persevere in this absolutely false idea, that all their
misfortunes are due to political causes, whilst in reality the terrible
crisis they are passing through is only a result of the economic
evolution which is taking place all over the world.
The burning question in this country which dominates every other is the
question of land ownership. Ireland is a country of small cultivators.
Let us first examine the question on the theoretical side.
Originally in all societies the land belonged to whoever would
cultivate and enclose it; since it had no value no one enclosed more
than he could cultivate himself, that is, very little, for their
implements were very primitive. Small estates were therefore formed
by the mere force of circumstances. In some countries, in France
for instance, at least in a considerable portion of the territory,
small estates have been preserved to the present time. This is very
fortunate, for, from a social point of view, it is the most perfect
system, and wherever it is possible to uphold it by law no hesitation
should be shown about doing so.
Unfortunately from an economic point of view the system is utterly
condemned. Agriculture is an industry like any other--one is always
obliged to repeat this fact, because when one alludes to it this
evident truth always seems forgotten. Now, in the present day, all
industries are concentrated. Factories diminish in number but increase
in importance. Those who cannot or will not submit to this necessity,
disappear. A farm is a factory of meat and corn. Now, if all other
things were equal, a large farm would always produce more economically
than a small one, because, as a rule, its expenses are less, and it has
a more perfect apparatus for doing the necessary work. The smaller ones
must therefore disappear.
And they are disappearing everywhere, even amongst us. In my opinion
this is not even doubtful. The other day M. Yves Guyot asserted it in
the Chamber of Deputies. He was right; property in France is becoming
concentrated; we have but to look round us to be convinced of the fact.
I may be answered that according to the returns of the tax-collectors
the number of properties does not seem to be decreasing. This argument
is not worth anything. How many landowners are there possessing
property in fifteen or twenty communes? How many are there who, having
by degrees bought ten or twelve lots in the same commune, ever gave
themselves the trouble of uniting them in one return? The truth is that
in all agricultural countries the peasants have ceased to buy land, and
they are selling it wherever they find a great landowner willing to buy
it. I, of course, except the vine districts from this statement.
The same phenomenon is noticeable in America, and still more
conspicuously. The Government does everything in its power to form and
maintain small properties; it distributes land to the emigrants by lots
of 160 acres, forbidding them to sell it under five years. As soon as
the five years are over the emigrants hasten to sell their lands, which
are never seriously cultivated until twenty or forty lots are united in
the same hands. Every American economist observes this tendency; it is
universal. Wherever the laws do not intervene large estates are rapidly
absorbing the smaller ones, because the small ones cannot compete
with the large, and if the laws intervene they are only efficacious
in diminishing production. Except in a few privileged countries small
farms must therefore disappear. Can Ireland boast of being one of
the fortunate exceptions? Most evidently not! Then why create small
farms in Ireland? or rather, since they already exist with all their
drawbacks, why endeavour to maintain them by founding small estates,
as the Land League is trying to do? It is aiming at impossibilities,
for they can only succeed by destroying steamers, railways, and
agricultural machinery all over the world.
We will now resume the discussion at the point where we left it. I
said that only two systems of agriculture are known--the small and
the great. Facility of transport and the perfection we have reached
in agricultural tools have rendered small cultivation impossible
nearly everywhere. Only the great remains. Let us now see under what
conditions it is working. It requires great capital; besides, it
evidently, like every other industry, has more chance of success when
it is directed by competent men. Now the most competent men not being
always those who have the most capital, the countries where agriculture
would flourish best would be those, of course if all other things
were equal, where a combination had been discovered which placed
large capital at the disposal of the most competent men--those, to
use a modern expression, where agricultural credit would be the best
organised.
This question has attracted great attention. It is very difficult to
solve, because no combination can be discovered which ensures that
the capital directed into agricultural channels would find sufficient
securities and interest. But the real reason is that agriculture is
already burdened with a first mortgage, for from time immemorial it
has had recourse to credit, and if it has been able to struggle on
until these latter times in spite of all the charges which crush it in
countries belonging to the old civilisation, it is because there is an
institution which has provided it with capital in such abundance and
at such low rates of interest, that naturally no other organisation
of agricultural credit can live by making needless repetition of its
arrangements; this institution is rent. If it has so many detractors in
the present day, it is because the people believe it to be of feudal
origin, and above all because they do not consider the conditions under
which it is working, nor the fate of agriculturists in countries where
renting land is little or never practised.
Some weeks ago I was in a smoking compartment of the express train
which goes from Chicago to New York. It was just at the time when
Mr. Henry George, the celebrated Socialist, had offered himself as
candidate for the New York mayoralty. The news had produced a great
impression all over the United States. Mr. George, has, in fact, used
his talent as a writer, which is really very great, for the diffusion
of the most advanced opinions. He considers that since the soil has no
value except through the labour that is spent upon it all the fruit of
the soil should return to the labourer, the rent of the land, if there
is one, being acquired as a right from the State. His system therefore
leads to the absolute suppression of landed property, since the owner
would soon tire of being only cashier to the State.
One of our travelling companions, a barrister from Minneapolis,
commenced to talk. From his first words it was easy to see that we
were listening to an ardent partisan of Mr. George’s doctrines.
“Gentlemen,” said he, as he ended a long speech intended to celebrate
the advantages of Socialism, “you know how all European nations are
now situated. In England, in a great part of France, and particularly
in Ireland, unfortunate wretches work like slaves to win harvests from
the earth, harvests of which they are only allowed to retain just the
amount absolutely necessary to keep them from dying of starvation, all
the rest goes to maintain in idleness people who have only had the
trouble of being born. It is private estates that have caused it all.
It is because the earth, the common property of all mankind, has been
unjustly monopolised by a few, that these infamous things have taken
place. You will tell me that these things are only seen in Europe
amongst nations of backward civilisation, but these private estates
also exist amongst us, and if we do not guard against it we shall also
feel the fatal consequences of the system here. Our agriculturists are
already in the hands of capitalists, who will now only advance them
money at fabulous interest.”
I had just finished my cigar, and thought that a discussion with the
good man might be amusing.
“Excuse me,” I commenced, interrupting him, “in which State do you live
then?”
“In Minnesota. But what is taking place in Minnesota is taking place in
the other States too.”
“And what interest did you say agriculturists are obliged to pay for
loans in these districts?”
“At one and a-half at least, and generally at two, and even at three,
per cent per month.”
“Quite right! I know that. Now that wheat is only worth fifty cents the
bushel the farmers make no profits; the capitalists feeling their money
is in danger will no longer lend without high interest; but then, why
do the farmers require money?”
“To build their houses, to drain, irrigate and plant, in fact, to put
the land into order that the State gives them.”
“That is exactly what I wished to make you say. The State gives the
land gratis: it is inalienable. Besides, in its present condition it is
valueless. Then what security has the capitalist? In our country, land
is not given gratuitously; but there are people who take, or who have
taken, the trouble to drain it, to make fences, to build outhouses,
and who then, not having the necessary aptitude for cultivating it,
put the whole property into the hands of a professional farmer, on
condition of receiving a very moderate rent in proportion to the
amount of capital tied up in it. Mr. George pretends that it is the
land that the landlord lets to his farmer. This is absolutely false.
Suppose an earthquake or some other cataclysm destroyed one of our old
French farms, demolished the buildings, effaced every trace of fence,
plantation, farm roads, and drainage--forced the land, in fact, to
return again to the state it was in two thousand years ago, in the time
of the Druids, or to the condition of the land given gratuitously by
your State to the emigrants in this country--I assert that to efface
all the results of this disaster, such large sums must be spent that
whatever rent might be asked for, even under the most favourable
circumstances, that rent would only produce a nominal interest on the
capital. It is then not the soil that I let, but the result of the
work and the capital that I and my predecessors have expended. I am in
exactly the same position as the capitalist in Minnesota. I advance
money to a professional farmer to enable him to earn his living by
cultivating the land; only since I am owner of the land the farmer
cannot carry off my security; I have, therefore, a good guarantee, I
can be satisfied with a very small interest, which I could not be if I
lived in Minnesota.
“One thing is certain, that owing to this association between
capitalist and cultivator, which is called tenant farming, a farmer
amongst us can retain as floating capital all his available money, on
which he can make eight or ten per cent., whilst he only pays three
or four per cent., and often less, for the sum, usually much greater,
that the landlord places at his disposal in the form of buildings
and fittings up of every kind. With our system, a labourer therefore
obtains money at three per cent. per annum, with yours, they must pay
three per cent. per month. And you think that we are the backward
nation! Allow me, dear sir, to return the compliment.”
I never saw faces more astonished than those of fifteen or twenty
Yankees who listened to me, seated in arm-chairs, their feet in the
air. Then happened one of those incidents that appear so odd, and
which, however, are so common now that every one travels. A young man,
whom I had not noticed, approached me from the end of the compartment.
“Sir,” he said, “for the last few minutes I seem to recognise you. Did
you not speak in public last year at Tergnier upon the subject you have
just been explaining?”
“Yes.”
“I thought so. I was there. I am Irish; I had just finished my studies
at Juilly, and I had been passing my holidays with the father of one
of my comrades, who was a farmer in the neighbourhood. Now I live with
my father, who is an architect at Saint Paul, Minnesota. It therefore
happens that I am well acquainted with the situation in both the
countries we are discussing, and allow me to say that I am certain you
are perfectly right.”
The young man’s intervention secured a complete triumph for me. I was
particularly pleased, because Mr. George’s partisan himself at once
said, in the most pleasant way:
“Well, stranger, I own I never thought of looking at the question from
that point of view. I don’t own myself beaten yet, but I’m shaken.”
In justice to the Americans, I must own that they always display the
most perfect courtesy and good faith in these discussions.
I am convinced that the thesis I maintain is perfectly correct. If
European agriculture, crushed with taxes and burdens of all kinds,
has been able to struggle for so long against the competition of new
countries, it is simply owing to the abundance of capital placed at its
service by the system of renting the land. Particularly now that the
struggle, if it is possible at all, is only possible through the aid
of large sums of money, it is the worst of follies to believe that in
breaking the tie that binds the capitalist and the farmer so closely
together, they can ameliorate the situation. This is true of Ireland
more than of anywhere else.
This, however, is the aim that the National League proposes to itself.
The most curious thing is that, in the end, their success will, in
reality, only benefit the landlords.
What, in fact, is now passing all over Europe? Land has lost nearly all
its value. The future is so dark that in France, as everywhere else,
one cannot find one landowner in a hundred who would not be too happy,
if not to sell all that he possesses, at least to ease his position in
a great degree, if he could obtain a reasonable price for his land.
And this is the time that the League chooses to propose dispossessing
the landlords by giving them sums of money equal to their actual
income, multiplied at least by fourteen, at most by twenty. How can
they procure the necessary money for such an operation, that is to say,
several milliards? By borrowing. If the Irish Budget is completely
distinct from that of the metropolis, and consequently the moneylenders
know that they cannot rely upon England’s guarantee, I doubt whether
they will display much eagerness. However, let us admit that this
immense undertaking may succeed. What would be the result?
The fifteen or twenty thousand present landowners, of whom a great
number are, until now, only retained in the country through the
difficulty of leaving it, would hasten to emigrate at once; they
would, therefore, no longer pay one penny of the old taxes, nor of
the new taxes, which the Government would be forced to raise to meet
the interest of the loan. From landowners, they would have all become
fund-holders; instead of having the trouble of collecting rents that
are very irregularly paid, they would be relieved by the State--which
would simply have substituted itself for them--from all these expenses
and all this annoyance.
The operation would certainly be most advantageous to them. But, I
ask myself, what would the farmer gain when he was obliged to pay
the tax-gatherer probably more than he now pays the agent? If one
could foresee, in the near future, a great increase in the produce of
the earth, one could understand their desire to become landowners,
because they would benefit by this increase, whilst with the present
arrangement it would be promptly followed by a rise in the rents. But,
on the contrary, everything indicates that the depreciation in the
price of land is far from having reached its lowest point.
They have therefore, in my opinion, everything to gain by remaining
tenant farmers. Now, is it true that they have as much reason to
complain of their landlords as they pretend? On that subject, too, I
think there is a good deal to be said. Let us proceed as we have done
before, and first examine the question from a theoretical point of view.
When we examine these things closely, we find that tenant farming has
existed from the most distant times. It was the first application of
the fertile principle of the division of labour. Some worked, whilst
others fought to protect them. Formerly, the landowners were called
lords, or seigneurs, and the farmers vassals; but, in reality, it was
always an association between capital and labour with a view to the
cultivation of the land. Only the difference of customs at that date
caused the mutual obligations imposed upon each party to be much more
numerous than they are now. For instance, the lord not only provided
the land and the buildings, he was also forced to promise to provide
as far as possible the security, without which the vassal’s enjoyment
of them would only be illusory. On the other hand, the vassal, besides
his dues, also promised his personal service. A farmer therefore gained
some advantage by taking lands in a seigneurie where they were dearly
let, but where he hoped to dwell in more security than elsewhere. But,
as compensation, the lord of the manor must often have consented to
great diminutions in favour of a tenant who seemed likely to render,
when required, good service as a soldier.
With the exception of a few trifling differences, the same arrangements
were made all over Europe, in Ireland as elsewhere. When an Irish
lord started for the crusades, or simply to make war upon one of
his neighbours, he selected those of his vassals whom he wished to
accompany him. If one of them refused, I fancy that no time was lost
before “evicting,” if not before hanging him; and, according to the
ideas of the period, he only received what he merited, since he had
failed in one of the obligations imposed upon him by his lease. Customs
have changed. Certain obligations, necessitated by the social state
which then existed, have now ceased to be requisite. A landlord no
longer guarantees his tenants personal safety. The police are charged
with the duty. And in the same way a young Irish captain, whose
regiment was ordered, three or four years ago, to go and fight Arabi
Pasha, never thought of asking his tenants to reinforce his company
if the effective total were incomplete. He contented himself with
sending a recruiting sergeant to seek for the men he required in the
neighbouring taverns, and he would most probably have even given him a
smart reprimand had he enlisted one of his tenants’ sons. The farmers
then owe absolutely nothing to their landlords except the obligations
which are freely discussed between them when the lease is signed, and
very clearly stated in its clauses. They are so perfectly aware of
their independence that they treat as tyrants those landlords who, at
election times, claim to nominate a candidate whose opinions do not
please them.
Would they like to return to the old customs? Evidently not. They wish
that to be an impossibility. Then, if landlords and tenants no longer
have, and never can have again, in strict law, any connection between
them except that which, in all business, links the buyer and seller,
what do these recriminations against the landlords, that now form the
foundation of Irish literature, mean? The sole duty of a buyer is to
be honest about the quality of the merchandise he offers for sale.
Can a Kerry farmer pretend that where he leases seventy-five acres of
peaty meadow, he expects to reap a harvest of pineapples? The truth
is, that he knows the land quite as well as the landlord, perhaps even
better. If he pays too much for it he can only blame himself and the
competition of the other farmers. But it is absurd to reproach the
landlord because prices are exaggerated.
If one considers the question from a strictly legal point of view, one
cannot then even discuss the Irish tenants’ complaints, for they have
no foundation.
But the relations of men with each other cannot be only based upon
strictly legal rights. There is a sentiment of a higher order, which
some call charity and others humanity, and which must also be taken
into account. Therefore, a really honourable man would never take
advantage of the circumstances that had placed another at his mercy
in order to force him to accept a ruinous bargain. Have the majority
of Irish landlords profited by the competition to raise their rents
unreasonably, as they are so often reproached with doing?
It is naturally impossible to answer this question in a general way.
When we reflect on the enormous and regular increase in the price of
meat which has characterised the last fifteen or twenty years, and
which, until a quite recent date, was apparently unlimited, we must
maintain, like the Irish landlords still do, that the rents have not
been excessively high. It must be remembered that Irish leases are
much longer than our own. They usually include three lives; that is to
say, that the landlord renounces the right to raise the rent until the
death of the would-be tenant’s grandson. It was therefore quite natural
that, remembering the rise in prices, by which he had not profited, the
landlord should exact a rent which might in some cases be exaggerated,
in consideration of current prices, but which would have seemed
reasonable had the rise continued. The misfortune is that prices have
fallen, and therefore a reduction of rent is absolutely necessary.
But it is quite certain that until these last few years the farmers
were doing well. The proof is, that when for some reason or other
they wished to retire, they always managed to sell their leases, and
sometimes to sell them very dearly. And even now they find buyers.
I was given numerous instances of this fact. Mr. Henry George, the
Socialist of whom I have already spoken, himself acknowledged, that
“Irish land is generally let below the price that the landlords could
obtain if it were put up to auction and they consented to let it
to the highest bidder without regard to persons.” He even quoted an
article in the _Nineteenth Century_, in which a well-known Irish
economist, Miss O’Brien, states that the sub-tenants generally pay the
leaseholders twice the amount for the land that the latter give to
the landlords. This fact established, we must still acknowledge that
certain landlords, particularly those who seek to sell, have sometimes
profited, at a moment when the majority of the leases were drawing
to a close, by suddenly raising the rents in a formidable manner.
This transaction has been carried out by speculators or by creditors
on mortgage, who have taken possession. It has rarely been done by
hereditary landowners. However, there is one well-known man who is
accused of having, with the aid of one of his brothers, doubled in
one year all the rents on an estate which he had just inherited, and
of having immediately sold it to an English manufacturer for a price
based on the new rental. This man is Mr. Parnell, the chief of the
Land League. Knowing the usual inaccuracy of accusations inspired by
political passions, I was much inclined to doubt the truth of this one.
However, the incident has been vouched for by so many of Mr. Parnell’s
neighbours, so many details respecting it have been quoted to me, that
it appears difficult to believe that there is not some foundation for
it.
When we examine facts closely we find then that in nine cases out of
ten, when an unfortunate man is spoken of as rack-rented to death,
it is of a sub-tenant they are speaking, not of a farmer. The Irish
farmer, on whose fate so much pity is wasted, is in reality more often
than not a frightful jobber; and it would be well to remember that, in
spite of all the laws that are made to prevent it, in spite of the
formal clauses contained in most of the leases, there are very few
farmers who do not contrive by different combinations, to find five or
six poor fellows who give themselves up to him, bound hand and foot, so
great is their desire to have a few acres of bad land. This is the case
of a man whose cabin I visited at Derrygariff; and there are in Ireland
two or three hundred thousand men who are in the same position.
When a farmer thinks of hiring a farm he should always, before closing
the agreement, consider the following argument: “If my wife, my
children, and I, placed ourselves in service our united salaries would
amount, for instance, to a sum of 80_l._ Besides, I have money invested
which brings me in another 40_l._ If I take a farm, it is evidently not
in order that I should lose money by it. It must therefore bring me in
a minimum of 120_l._, that is to say, the difference between the sum
I can reasonably draw from it, in good and bad years, and the rent I
have to pay, must amount to more than 120_l._, since in this difference
will lie my profits. I must therefore estimate as exactly as possible
what the average of this income will be, and when once I know it I
shall be able to judge what I can offer the landlord, who on his side
should make an analogous calculation. If his claim is so high that I
cannot hope to regain the 120_l._ per annum that represent my work and
the interest of my capital, I will leave him his farm and search for
another!”
Things would go better if every one reasoned in this way. The Irish
landlords would not let their farms too dearly, for the excellent
reason that no one would give them more than they are worth, and
the tenants would not insist upon keeping seven or eight of their
children and their families on a farm already too small for themselves.
As for those who are unable to obtain a farm, they would not seek a
sub-tenancy without any guarantee of tenure and for which they pay two
or three pounds per acre, while the farmer only pays one pound to his
landlord--when he pays him at all. Only fathers will not be separated
from their children; others will not resign themselves to emigration;
the population is constantly increasing and the number of farms is
rather diminishing, so, whilst the number of those who wish for land
augments, it is quite natural that prices rise.
How can Mr. Gladstone and the Land League seriously believe that
they can remedy this state of things by political or legislative
measures? One proof that the laws can do nothing for it is that there
is no country in the world where the law is already so favourable to
the tenant. It can never hold the balance equal between him and the
landlord. Thus, even if there is a lease, the tenant has always the
right of leaving his farm, by giving six months’ notice in advance, and
yet he cannot be sent away from it. That is to say that he profits by
all the good luck, without any of the risks of his bargain. A law was
passed five or six years ago which entails still more extraordinary
consequences. It gives the tenant the right to undertake, on his
farm, under pretence of improvements, any work he chooses to attempt,
and imposes upon the landlord the obligation to repay him the whole
value, if at the end of the lease, he will not renew it at the same
rent, or he wishes to send away the tenant. Some years ago one of
my acquaintances let a field situated near the town, to a butcher
in Limerick. The lease formally stipulated that the field was to
be retained in grass. But it happened that through the increase of
population, the town extended on that side. The butcher determined to
build a house in the field, which would bring him a good profit. To get
rid of him now, it is necessary to pay him for this house, and yet his
rent cannot be raised! One might just as well have given the butcher
the right of expropriation.
The Irish are always comparing their fate with that of Americans. I had
the curiosity to inquire what the American law could be on the subject
of rent. I commenced by making inquiries from several well-informed
persons, and then by their advice I bought a small book, to which I
would refer every one who wishes to be really edified, _Every Man his
Own Lawyer_.
The results of these inquiries rather astonished me. In America there
is no law that restricts the landlord’s rights. This is what Mr. George
says on this subject--I like to quote him, because he is not suspected
of sympathy for the social arrangements which prevail in Europe:--
“We must acknowledge that an aristocracy like that of the Irish
landlords has the virtues as well as the vices peculiar to it. In their
transactions its members often allow themselves to be influenced by
considerations that would be valueless in the eyes of ordinary business
men. An American who had land to let would only think of obtaining the
highest possible rent. If he were told that humanity exacted that he
should let it below the price he hoped to obtain, he would consider the
proposal as strange as if his exchange agent proposed to him to sell
stock below the current price.”
Mr. Buckle, who has interested himself in these questions, considers
that the rent in Ireland generally equals one-fourth of the gross
produce. In California a great deal of the land is let for one-third of
the gross produce, sometimes even at one-half. In the north-west of the
United States the system of rent is definitively extended--the land is
let for half the produce.
It is quite certain that if Ireland became an American State, the fate
of Irish farmers would be infinitely more precarious than it now is.
The political question has then a very minor influence in reality.
The Irish population has been for a long time more miserable than the
populations of other European countries, because in proportion to
the resources of the country, it has always been much too numerous.
And this disproportion between the number of the population and the
resources which the country can provide, tends to become greater as the
expenses necessitated by an ever-advancing civilisation become more
considerable. A larger portion of these resources must be withdrawn
to meet the general outlay. In the time of Fin M’Coul and the other
Irish kings, there were, it is said, more inhabitants,[5] and there
were certainly more cattle than there now are; but at that time the
cattle in the country were only used to feed the inhabitants, while
now, out of every ten oxen there is one that must be sold to pay the
constabulary, another to pay the schoolmasters, a third to support the
navy, and so on, so that, in fact, only two or three are left as food
for the inhabitants. This is no longer enough, and consequently the
Irish are dying of hunger.
There are but two means of restoring the equilibrium. Increase the
number of cattle. To do this, it is necessary to improve and drain the
pasturage, and the landowners are open to reproach for not having done
more in this direction; this is the most serious reproach that can be
made of them; but we must acknowledge that whatever they may do the
result could not materially influence the general situation. This can
only be seriously ameliorated by a great diminution of the population.
We feel some repugnance at this solution of the difficulty. But still,
we have only to consult history to be convinced that from the earliest
ages there have always been nations upon whom it was imposed.
The Germans threw themselves upon the Roman Empire because they had
not enough to eat at home; it was hunger that drove the Normans to
France. A hundred years ago the Scottish Highlanders literally died of
starvation; they were conveyed in a body to Canada, where many of them
have acquired large fortunes. It is unquestionable that they suffer
much less in Ireland since they have only five million inhabitants
instead of nine. However, they still suffer there, and it is because
Ireland, in its present economic condition, cannot feed more than two
or three million people, perhaps less.
But she could assuredly retain more if it were possible to create some
industry. Unfortunately this seems very difficult. I am convinced that
we are destined to see, in a very near future, a large number of
industries removed: all those dealing with materials that are neither
produced nor consumed in the country, that is to say, the only ones
which are possible in Ireland, which does not produce any raw material,
and where the consumption is always very small. I believe that many of
these industries, if not all, will be forcibly transported to other
localities than those where they are now working, and that in choosing
these localities the owners will be guided in a great measure by
climatic considerations. Workmen of all countries evidently aspire to
an equality of enjoyment. On the other hand, the facility of transport,
the amalgamation of working apparatus, resulting from the diffusion of
capital, impose upon masters the levelling of salaries. Now with equal
salaries, men suffer more in cold damp climates than in dry warm ones.
I add that they work less. This fact is well known in the French navy,
for a ship built or repaired in Brest costs infinitely more than if the
same work had been executed in the dockyards at Toulon. In Ireland,
a workman must always spend more for his food, his firing, and the
maintenance of his family, than if he lived in France or America. The
workman’s associations, which are now multiplying on all sides, will
soon reveal this disadvantage to him; he will demand an increase of
salary and ruin his master.
I have therefore little faith in the resurrection of Irish industries.
But what is impossible for private enterprise may be done by
Government. I even think it may be considered a Government duty. The
Irish landowners are reproached for their absenteeism, that is, for
the habit of spending their income outside the country. If there is a
landowner guilty of absenteeism it is certainly the Government. For
instance, the Irish coast is broken by a series of roads, each finer
than the other. If England were to suppress one of her Channel arsenals
and re-establish it in Ireland, the transfer would certainly cost her
some money. But the money would be well spent, for it would enable some
thousands of families to remain in the country, instead of being forced
to expatriate themselves before long.
If the wish to obliterate the odious memories of the last century is
not strong enough to induce England to engage in this task, there is
another consideration which should make her reflect. Her power is
wholly based on her colonial empire. Until now she has been able,
without too much difficulty, to govern by force one hundred and fifty
million Indians, and maintain the colonies of her own people in a
state of political guardianship--Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
If she had not enough men to keep up the effective total of the sixty
or eighty regiments that garrison India she would soon be driven from
the country. The white population of the other colonies doubles itself
every eight or ten years. When they have two or three times more
inhabitants than the metropolis, is it probable that the legislative
supremacy of the latter will be long maintained? It is therefore of
vital importance to England to retain in Great Britain the largest
population it can possibly support, and on this account the emigration
of two or three million Irish would be a great misfortune for her.
In the first part of this study I related a few incidents of the crisis
which now rages in Ireland. How will this crisis end? I believe in the
most simple way in the world. The adoption of Mr. Gladstone’s Bill
would only have made things worse. The tenants would perhaps have
imagined that they derived some advantage from it at first; but, as
I have said, it is not the leaseholders of the farms who are really
miserable, but the under-tenants, who are shamefully rack-rented by the
farmers. But no one can do anything for them, since in their eagerness
to obtain the land they will accept any combination proposed to them,
in order to evade the law, which forbids sub-letting. I therefore
believe that Mr. Gladstone’s defeat was a good thing for Ireland.
The Government’s first duty is to re-establish material order, and this
can only be done by suppressing the jury. The _Times_ already speaks
of it. There would certainly not be an uprising, or if there were, it
would not be of any importance.
Rents would fall enormously, as they have already done all over Europe,
and agriculture would disappear almost entirely, to give place to
cattle-breeding.
Many signs prove that this will be the way a settlement will be
arranged. It is first the enormous subsidies sent from America, and
secondly the support given by the clergy, that have made this crisis so
important and the League so powerful. Now the Americans begin to tire
of it. After my return from Ireland I made a tour in the United States,
and I can affirm that this sentiment is becoming visible. At a great
Irish meeting held at Chicago whilst I was there, one of the orators
ventured to say, that if the millions of dollars sent to Ireland were
only used to pay for firing an occasional shot at a landlord from
behind a hedge, the results were not in proportion to the sacrifices
made, and the audience seemed to agree with his opinion. I have every
reason to believe that lately the American subsidies have greatly
diminished.
I fancy also that the clergy are only waiting for a good opportunity to
withdraw from the League. The other day, Mr. Harrington, at Killarney,
had already uttered some words which seem to indicate that politicians
are beginning to fear something of the kind. The clergy entered the
League in spite of themselves; the movement first showed itself with so
much violence that had they left its exclusive direction in the hands
of the politicians, they would have run the risk of compromising, at
least for a time, all their popularity. But the Catholicism of many of
the Irish-Americans, whose alliance they were forced to submit to, is
so doubtful, that it is easy to foresee that the cause of religion will
not gain anything from their triumph. I am quite convinced that the
clergy will not long defer separating themselves from the League.
The movement itself may yet last for some time, but it will gradually
become weaker. Everything depends on the rapidity with which emigration
is conducted. Now, I believe it will be speedily carried out. Formerly,
the Irish would not leave the country until they had absolutely no
means of staying there. I always thought that they emigrated pretty
willingly; but I was mistaken with regard to the past. Now, on the
contrary, all the young men only think of expatriation. An Australian
ex-official, who has retired about fifteen years, and is living in
the county of Limerick, pointed out to me this change of feeling in
the population. Every Irishman who leaves for Australia or the United
States does more towards the solution of the crisis than Mr. Parnell’s
finest speeches; for, in diminishing the number of competitors for the
land, he lowers the price of farms, and the whole question is answered!
Mr. Parnell, and all the otherwise honourable men who give him their
assistance, will not then succeed in re-establishing the independence
of Ireland, nor in modifying to any visible extent the present
political situation. We are convinced that after some years, when they
see peace and relative prosperity restored to their country, they will
not regret that they failed to carry out their programme; for we do
them the honour to believe that they would be more contented with an
arrangement that secured, as far as possible, the amelioration of their
fellow-countrymen’s fate, than with the egotistical satisfaction which
a momentary success would give them. If their only aim was to obtain
revenge by the ruin of England for all the injuries she inflicted
upon their fathers, they would certainly have some chance of success
in continuing the struggle. But it is only too evident that instead
of profiting by the downfall of English power, Ireland could only be
crushed by the wreck.
So many sacrifices, so much devotion--have they all been expended to no
purpose? Assuredly not. The shock given to Irish society by exposing
all its misery has certainly assisted in ripening the question, of
hastening its solution, and consequently of shortening the sufferings
of all that too numerous class of the population who persist in
remaining in their native land, although that land can no longer
nourish them. A second Ireland already exists in America; a third will
soon be founded in Australia or elsewhere. In the prosperity that they
have found will the Irish retain the religious faith, the morality,
and the gaiety, which have supported and consoled their fathers through
so many years of oppression and misery? Unfortunately, we are not quite
sure. These fine qualities, which seem inherent in the race, receive
very severe blows when it quits its native soil. Let us at least hope
that they will be perpetuated amongst those who remain in the Emerald
Isle, and that travellers will be able to continue paying them the
homage that I have done when returning from a visit to _Paddy at Home_.
THE END.
FOOTNOTE:
[5] I scarcely believe this, but the Irish like to assert it.
RICHARD CLAY AND SONS,
LONDON AND BUNGAY.
THOMAS CARLYLE’S WORKS.
SARTOR RESARTUS.
FRENCH REVOLUTION.
LIFE OF JOHN STERLING.
OLIVER CROMWELL’S LETTERS AND SPEECHES.
ON HEROES AND HERO WORSHIP.
PAST AND PRESENT.
CRITICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS.
LATTER-DAY PAMPHLETS.
LIFE OF SCHILLER.
FREDERICK THE GREAT.
WILHELM MEISTER.
TRANSLATIONS FROM MUSÆUS, TIECK AND RICHTER.
THE EARLY KINGS OF NORWAY:
Essay on the Portraits of Knox; and General Index.
THE LIBRARY EDITION.
_Handsomely printed in 34 vols. demy 8vo, cloth, £15 3s._
THE CHEAP AND UNIFORM EDITION
_In 23 vols. crown 8vo, cloth, £7 5s._
THE PEOPLE’S EDITION.
_In 37 vols. small crown 8vo, price 2s. each vol., bound in cloth; or
in sets of 37 vols. in 19, cloth gilt, for £3 14s._
ASHBURTON EDITION.
_17 vols. demy 8vo, 8s. each._
CHARLES DICKENS’S WORKS.
MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT.
DAVID COPPERFIELD.
BLEAK HOUSE.
LITTLE DORRIT.
PICKWICK PAPERS.
OUR MUTUAL FRIEND.
NICHOLAS NICKLEBY.
DOMBEY AND SON.
EDWIN DROOD; REPRINTED PIECES; and other Stories.
BARNABY RUDGE.
OLD CURIOSITY SHOP.
CHRISTMAS STORIES.
OLIVER TWIST.
GREAT EXPECTATIONS.
SKETCHES BY “BOZ.”
UNCOMMERCIAL TRAVELLER.
CHRISTMAS BOOKS.
A CHILD’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
AMERICAN NOTES and PICTURES FROM ITALY.
A TALE OF TWO CITIES.
HARD TIMES.
“THE CHARLES DICKENS EDITION”
Complete, with Life by JOHN FORSTER. 23 vols. crown 8vo, £4 3_s._; with
Illustrations.
THE HOUSEHOLD EDITION.
Complete, with Life by JOHN FORSTER. 22 vols. crown 4to, cloth, £4
8_s._ 6_d._
THE POPULAR LIBRARY EDITION.
Complete in 30 vols. post 8vo, £6; separate vols., 4_s._ each.
THE CABINET EDITION.
_Now Publishing._
To be completed in 30 vols. small fcap. 8vo, Marble Paper Sides, Cloth
Backs, with uncut edges, price 1_s._ 6_d._ each. A complete Work
will be Published every Month, and _each Volume_ will contain _Eight
Illustrations reproduced from the Originals_.
GEORGE MEREDITH’S WORKS.
A New and Uniform Edition, crown 8vo, 6_s._ each.
DIANA OF THE CROSSWAYS.
EVAN HARRINGTON.
THE ORDEAL OF RICHARD FEVEREL.
THE ADVENTURES OF HARRY RICHMOND.
SANDRA BELLONI, originally EMILIA IN ENGLAND.
VITTORIA.
RHODA FLEMING.
BEAUCHAMP’S CAREER.
THE EGOIST.
THE SHAVING OF SHAGPAT; AND FARINA.
LONDON: CHAPMAN & HALL, LIMITED, HENRIETTA STREET, W.C.
[Illustration: Mellin’s Food]
TEA OF ROBUST STRENGTH
CEYLON, INDIAN, & CHINA GROWTH,
At 1s. 4d., 1s. 6d., 1s. 8d., and 2s. a Pound,
SOLD BY
COOPER COOPER & CO.
_And there is NO SUCH VALUE sold in the United
Kingdom at these Prices._
Finer Teas of Choicest and Most Select
Qualities, 3s., 2s. 6d., & 2s. a Pound,
AT A COMMISSION ONLY ON THE PRICE PAID IN EASTERN MARKETS.
THREEPENCE only is the charge made by COOPER COOPER & CO. for sending
Packages of TEA from Four to Ten pounds in weight, by Parcel Post, to
any part of the United Kingdom.
_SAMPLES POST FREE ON APPLICATION._
COOPER COOPER & CO.
CHIEF OFFICE:
50, KING WILLIAM ST., LONDON BRIDGE, E.C.
BRANCHES:
63, BISHOPSGATE ST. WITHIN, E.C.; 35, STRAND, W.C.;
268, REGENT CIRCUS, W.; 21, WESTBOURNE GROVE, W.;
334, HIGH HOLBORN, W.C.; 266, WESTMINSTER BRIDGE RD., S.E.,
LONDON; and 20 & 21, EAST STREET, BRIGHTON.
+-------------------------------------------------+
|Transcriber’s note: |
| |
|Obvious typographic errors have been corrected. |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------+