New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-03-26
HONE RCLE IND lie LIND.

Mr.. Gladstones Irish policy is not to be
authoritatiyely announced until April 8. This
new delay is attributed in London to change
of plan. The scheme which has been submitted
to the Cabinet involved the purchase of the
landlords estates at enormous expense to Eng
lish taxravers. Mr.. Chamberains opposition
aud the lukewarm support which the proposals
have received from the public have induced the
Prime Minister to make bold change OF
front. He IS now preparing to lay be-
fore the Cabinet Immediately, and suDse-
quently before Parliament, his plan for sepa-
rate legislature in Dublin. He will give
precedence to Home Rule and defer bis land
purchase scheme until Parliament and the
public are ready to decide whether the land
lords are to be left to the meTcies OF British or
Irish legislators. This change of policy, if 1t
be carried into effect will force MI. Chamber
lain, if he persists in his present determination,
to resign in consequence OF opposition to Home
Rule. lie would have preferred the land pur
chase scheme as a ground for resignation be-
cause it would have been a more popular ques
ton with the Radical constituencies whose favor
he courts.
Mr.. Davitt, in the very interesting cable
letter published in yesterdays issue. dealt with
this change of policy with grim humor. lie
spoke of Home Rule as a cheap luxury IN COM
parison with appropriation at a cost of
5000, 600, OO0 and predicted that whereas Mr..
Gladstone would have been defeated on the
question of land purchase, he will carry the
new measure by majority of sixty. The
Prime Minister in his Judgment, has not only
trumped Mr.. Chamberlain's trick, but is boldly
leading his strongest suit and will win the
game. The Radicals can now vote for Home
Rule as a cheap policy without being haunted
by the fear of the resentment of the tax
payers, and when the Lords throw out the
measure it will have in general election the
support of all opponents of hereditary legis-
lators and will rapidly acquire popularity in
England. The rejection of Home Rule by the
Upper House will involve an uprising against
titled obstructionists which will complete Mr..
Parnell's labors.
Mr.. Davitt comments with fine irony upon
the significant confession, wrung from the
highest landlord authorities in England, that
for 10000 holdings in Ireland there can be
no economic rent. So long as there was any
chance of squeezing anything out of the ten
ants the existence of such rent was vehe-
mently urged but the moment Mr.. Gladstone
proposed to buy the estates Mt the expense of
English taxpayers the discovery is made that
500, 900 of these holdings have no actual value
and are not worth purchasing. If these land
lord authorities are right in this estimate, Mr..
Davitt cannot understand how the tenants can
be evicted in future for the non-payment of
rent, or how in the final settlement of the land
question the claims of the owners of this class
of holdings can receive pecuniary compensa-
ton. This is a more sweeping argument
against landlordism than we should care to
support, although we perceive the force
of Mr.. Davitts presentation of the case, He
is undoubtedly right, however, in his assertion
that land reform in Ireland has;already opened
the way for land reform in England