The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-06-05
+. W. Russell on the Irish Land
Purchase Bill.

Seldom has any periodical, British or
American. published an article of 80
much interest, not only to Irishmen, but
to Irish Americans, as is the discussion
of the Land Purchase bill for Ireland
contributed by Mr.. T. w. RUSSELL to
the current number of the North Ameri-
can Rerieu. 1t is no exaggeration Of the
facts to say that but for the position
taken by the wel-known Cnionist men,
Der for an Ulster constituency the Irish
landlords and the Irish tenants would
never have come together. and the pres
ent Land Purchase bill would never have
been framed. 1t is, therefore, of obvious
importance to learn precisely what he
thinks of it. for on his opinion will largely
depend the success or the emendation of
the measure.
Let VI say at once that if Mr.. RUSSELL
had to choose between Mr.. WYNDHAM's
bill in it's original form or nothing he
would take the bill. He admits that, even
as it stands, the project is a great, far
eachng and cpoch-making measure.
II is all that because it contemplates the
nxtirpation of dual ownership in the Irish
soil TO which end it not only mortgages
the imperial credit for loan Of $500 ,Ooo,-
Ohb, hut makes in addition free grant of
$50 900 oo0 to facilitate the transfer Of the
land from the owner to the occupant.
The bill has faults, however, which Mr..
RUSSELL proceeds to point out, partly
because justice to the tenant demands it
and partly because he is confident that
the Balfour Government would not go so
far unless il were ready to go little fur.
ther, should due cause be shown. The
deficiencies OF the measure can be rem
edied in the committee stage, which the
bill has now reached, and for that
reason Mr.. RUssELL's article. which adj
vocates certain amendments, is pecu.
liarly timely.
He objects, in the first place, TO the pro-
vision that the terminable annllities to
be paid by the tenant-purchaser shall not
fall more than 20 per cent. below the rent
in the case Of First-Term rents, l. e., rents
fixed by the Land Courts for the first
statutory period of fifteen wears; and
not more than 80 per cent. below the rent
in the case of Second Term rents. Why,
asks Mr.. RUSSELL, should the bargaining
power Of vendor and purchaser be thus
limited? If there be landlords willing
to give larger abatement than 40 per
cent on First-Term rents. or 80 per cent.
on Second-Term rents, why should they
be restrained? There is no satisfactory
answer to the question, Clearly, there
should be no limit to the power of agree
ment. 1t appears, further, that the bill
is vague with regard to tenants whose
rents have not been fixed by the Land
Courts, because they have been pre-
vented by applying for revision by ar
rcars, or other causes. The rights of such
tenants should be distinctly defined when
tho bill is scritin7ei in committee.
The section OF Mr.. RUssELL'S article
which is likely to attract most attention
is that in which he argues that tenants
now subject to Second-Term rents this
ia the position Of the majorty should
not agree with their landlords to pay by
way of terminable annuities more than
tho equivalent Of twcnty-three years
purchase of the rent, This, Mr., RUSSELL
shows. would be good bargain for the
landlord, because he is to be relieved from
the costs of collection, which amount on
the average to more than 10 per cent. OF
the rent. Suppose for instance, that the