Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1881-05-11
The Irish Land Bill.

Conservative as the English governing
classes may be, they often have the courage
to try remedies for great wrongs so radical
that the republicans of America are scared
at the thought of them. The wisdom and
courage which enables them to take the bull
by the horns when he can be successfully
handled no otherwise is redeeming trait in
the English. 1t arises out of their sturdy
common sense Gladstone's new Irish Land
Bill would be denounced as crank COM
munism," in America. Everything likely
to efe.t tlie Interests OF rIcn 81
considered here. Even our new tax laws
have been honored with that epithet. A
rather surly friend of ours frequently de-
cares that nothing is sacred in New Eng
land but rich mans money. In old Eng
land rich mans money is powerful, but it
is not especially sacred. To destroy West
Indian slavery England did not hesitate to
interfere with the rights Of property" al
though she made compensation. Mr.. Glad
stones bill for the benefit of the Irish farm
ers interferes with those rights "-abso-
lutely annuls some of them-without offer
ing any compensation. The great mass of
the tenant holdings in Ireland have been
rented under yearly leases, terminable at
the will of the landlord, liable to an increase
of rent at his pleasure and subject for ar
rears to the severe and strenuous remedy of
distraint--a seizure of goods by the land
lord on his own motion without recourse to
court Lands have been bought and sold,
liabilities incurred, investments made, con-
tracts entered into, all the multifarious acts
and agreements which rest upon ownership
and property in land have been held and
taken upon the supposition that the land
lords right to his land was absolute and his
power over his tenant bounded only by his
contract with him; principle made the
prospective basis of all future legislation
on the Irish land question by parliament no
longer ago than 1860 and first departed
from in 1870.
Mr.. Gladstone's bill changes this at
stroke. 1t vests in the tenant an assignable
right in his tenancy. 1t changes the exist
ing contract between the man who "owns"
the land and the man who "rents" the
land. 1t recognizes rights lying back of the
rights of property ordinarily admitted as
absolute by society and provides that the
landlord shall not be permitted to do as he
pleases with what he and the law have con-
sdered as his own," without paying for the
privileges. This assignable right tenant
may sell to his landlord or to another tenant,
transferring it like any other property the
land-court standing by to see that this right
is not made worthless by an undue increase
OF rent. The state not only in the land bill
carves out of the property of the landlord a
new property for the tenant, but it also pro-
vides that this new property shall be held
and administered and dealt with subject to
the supervision OF its own officers. The
actual changes in the ownership of land in
Ireland which this bill will work, no one
pretends to predict. 1t may lead to the
subdivision of land into small holdings held
| in fee, to the creation of small farms held
by ground rent or to single modification
of the present system in which the tenant
will continue to pay rent and the landlord
to manage his estate subject to the recurrent
interference OF the land-courts when the two
are unable TO arrange their own differences.
| Whichever result the bill may bring about,
however, it is generally admitted that it
will give the tenant the freedom, the justice
and protection which he has demanded.
| The reasons upon which Mr.. Gladstone
bases his bill are as noticeable as its scope.
lie points out, as was natural in speaking
before an English parliament, that there are
dim precedents in its favor. A right of as
signment was enjoyed in no very distinct
form in the 18th century, and the land act
of 1870 recognized the right of tenant to
his holding as long as he paid the rent asked
but Mr.. Gladstone does not pretend TO con-
ceal the fact that the bill is based not on the
precedents of the past, but on the wrongs Of
the presest. The law lays its hand on the
right of the landlord because it has been
abused, not by all nor by most but by some.
The common good Of the greater number is
presented as the simple and sufficient reason
for stripping a property owner Of right
which he has paid for with his money and
expected TO enjoy under the protection of
tina law fill he aold II