The examiner., 1881-12-10
The Origin of Landlordism.

dal system of Europe.
 Now the fendal system proceeded on thu
 principle that all landed titles wer'
 derived from the king, that thu
 king of every nation was lord par
 amount, and as such, held the only inde
 feasible title to all the land of the king
 dom-that the title to the land of an!
 country became vested and perfect in th'
 king whose army should subjugate th'
 people of that country and take possession
 of their soil-that the victorious king
 could then parcel out those lands among
 his chief supporters, officers of his army or such of his subjects as he pleased-whe in turn could parcel them out among thei1 several knights and esquires, each demand ing of the other homage, fealty and rent
 This indeed was the practical feudal way of asserting the doctrine that Might is Right" and serves to illustrate the fact that in all feudal countries, patriotism is embraced in four words ''God save the King.''
 There is little doubt but the reason for land owners in feudal countries asking for the practice of this Cody economy is among the first and best of selfish reasons for if the king was overthrown and de- stroyed, their titles were overthrown and destroyed with him, and they became sub- ject to the will of the fortunate victor.
 Therefore it is, that whenever the reign ing monarch has been overthrown and de- posed by more powerful monarch, we find the resident nobility and gentry mani festing wonderful alacrity in acknowl- edging the supremacy of the conqueror, for by thus 'crooking the pregnant hinges of the knee' thrift has sometimes followed fawning."
 The feudal system went further, and proceeded on the ground, that all civil and and political rights were derived from pos session of the soil-that those who pos sessed no land, possessed no civil or politi- cal rights, in fact that they were not men, but serfs and villians-and for this reason we find in all purely feudal countries but 8 small number of land owners who enjoy all the privileges of citizenship.
 It was this fact that induced John Bright to say in his great Birmingham speech in 1876 that ''the fourteen thousand persons who owned the land of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, were the power that made and administered the laws"
 Now we hold that all pure democracy has this for its foundation principle, the soil of every country rightfully belongs to the people of that country, and the peoples title cannot be defeated by the act of any conqueror, or foreign legisla- ture.
 If this is true, then the people of Ire land are under no obligation to pay rent to English landlordism for the privilege of using and occupying the soil of Ireland, for the English landlords title to Irish soil was originally only obtained by conquest and robbery.
 True it may be said that large number of the present claimants of Irish soil have purchased their titles, bought and paid for them, therefore they are entitled to rent. 140b us 0Adu1uO I1dUOCEs 4NON uA16 ID B principle of law, and English law at that. NO naan casa convey greater title to property thos that aOh5ch be possesses. Now if the title of the ancestors of the present claimants-or if the title of the ancestors of those of whom the present claimants purchased, was that of conquest or robbery, ,as they could convey no greater title than they possessed, then the title of he present claimants, though paid for, is ,nly that of conquest and robbery.
 For this reason we are opposed to the methods advocated by some M. P. leaders ,f the Land League. to establish Peasant in Ireland. That plan is to give Irish tenants the privilege of buying ,f the landlord piece of land at a fair orice.
 If burglar should break into one of ,ur merchantile houses and steal goods, would the owner on finding and identify ng those goods, pay the person in whose possession he found them, whether that person was the original thief or one who lad bought them of the thief?
 Certainly no man of sound judgment would pursue that course.
 On the contrary if he found his goods in possession of the thief he would re-take hem, and he found them in possession 'f one who had purchased of the thief, he would still say 'These goods are mine. True you may have bought them, but you lave bought of the thief, who had no right o sell, and you must look to the thief to you.'
 So we say to the Irish tenant: Seek not 0 buy the land you have been robbed of t belongs to you. True, many of the pres mt claimants may have bought of the rob- Der, but the robber had no right to sell. Let them look to the robber or the gov that has supported the robbery to indemnify them. Take you your land.
 FINE PHoToGRAPHY.-To any and all