, 1880-10-20

distress, he considers, is not the rapacity
OF landlords, nor the heavy Tents-tor
these he considers are, az q rule, Fifty
per cent. lower than those of lands OF
similar quality in Flanders--but the thrift
~lessness and shiftlessness of the poorer
tenants, who, so far from improving the
land occupied by them, constantly impo..
verish and exhaust it. Again, we say, ii
an Englishman had said this he would be
branded as a fanatical partisan OF :" land
lordism," We very much fear that the
same is likely to Ibe said even OF M. de
Molinari. Political economy,as be truly
says, is jnot a popular science, and Irish
men 10 their present temper are little dis
posed to look at the agrarian question in
the dry light of political economy. Never
theless, it is certainly worthy of note that
an independent foreign observer, accus.
toned to deal with questions of agricultu-
raj industry sees in the suffering Irish pea
SAINT not 30 much the downtrodden victim
of a hear tless landlord as the sufferer from
the inevitable consequences of unskilful
hnsbandry and thriftless habits OF life. Nor
does NJ. de Molinari anticipate very much
relief from such remedies as the extension
of the Ulster custom or the increase of
small holdings through the operation of
the Bright clauses of the Land Act. The
Ulster custom, he says, is open to the eco
nomical objection that it deprives the
incoming tenant of a portion of the capital
needed for the efficient cultivation of bis
holding, and, as a matter of fact, it has
been too readily credited with the prospect
ty due to the influx of industry and capital
into the North from England and Scotland.
II the custom itself were the sole, cause of
the prosperity of the districts affected by
it, it ought to operate equally beneficially
in Donegal. The policy of establishing
email holdings and what ate called peasant
proprietorships might perhaps, have been
expected to iud special favour with M. de
Molinari both as a Belgian and an econo-
mist. But, possibly because be is both, be-
cause as a Belgian he knows exactly what
peasant proprletorships are and what they
can do, and because as an economist he
can regard them in the light of practical
and familiar experience, and not merely in
that of social and economical theory, he
pronounces against them as a remedy for
the agrarian maladies OF Ireland. His
remarks on this point are worthy of
the most attentive consideration. The
Irish, he says. unlike the Belgians and the
French, have had no apprenticeship 10
thrift. They have not had slowly and
patiently to acquire the industry and capt.
tai necessary to the successful culture of
small holdings, and if they were suddenly.
by means of advances from the State or
otherwise, to be placed 10 possession of
the soil, they would be 90 better off than
before. The "husbandry of the Pharaohs"
applied to the soil of Ireland by its present
occupants in their present condition could
no more hold its WI against capital, in
dustry, and intelligence, than handloom
weayers could hope to hold their own
against the introd uction of steam power.
1t is sufficiently clear that M. de Moli-
mari has a firm grasp of the evils under
which Ireland is labouring, and it will
naturally be asked whether he has no
remedy of his own to propose. But in
truth he contends that we hear too much
in Ireland Of remedies to be applied from
above and from without, aud pay too
little heed to the effect of such efforts as
may be made from below aud from within.
He anticipates much from 'the magic CT
/" patience" from waiting for nature to do
by natural means what it has done already
to o very large extent; and if he has any
specific remedy to propose, it may, per-
haps, be condensed into the simple pre-
coriofson at o>r ~rLsL~V on1 roor <lr,fk -