The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-25

nance was at an end. He pointed out
 that the whole strain of financing the
 act up to the present had fallen on Ireland.
 Ireland had borne without murmur-
 Ing loss of s15.000,0o0 on notation, which was properly Imperial business.
 The assistance now required m the
 Imperial Exchequer to complete land purchase would not be a sixth part of
 the Imperial equivalent of Ireland's contrib ution.
 It cost the British taxpayer $500. 900
 year to put down cattie-driving, q,
 which existed only in two or three counties and were profoundly con- demned by the general public opinion of the country. The extra s500,00 on extra police would have enabled an- noated; how many $500, 0,000 a year would it cost the British payer 70 deal with thes situation if all classes and parties In Ireland were to be incensed and maddened by Engiand's own deed in repudiating the treaty of 1903 and bidding landlords and tenants to fKht 1t out between them In a fresh agra rian war to the knife? It was a mere question whether the money of the British taxpayers would be spent In very moderate contribution to com plete the noblest and most successful reform ever attempted in Ireland or In thrusting the country back into a general hell, from which. whoever suf- fered, the Imperial taxpayer would not escape unscorched.
 Lords Kenmore. castietown, Barry more, Dunraven. and Bandon address ed the meeting fin support of it's object. and in conclusion deputation consist ing of ten landlords ten tenants, and a m af ha arlNa with William o'Brien was appointed to act in terms of the resolution.
 Important references were made 10 the Land Act deadlock at a meeting of the Fermanagh branch of the Land- lords Convention held in Enniskillen. Mir. H. do F. Montgomery, D. L., who presided, said the landlords were not responsible for the terms of the act, but they were parties to the general scheme of the act.
 The finance of the act was novel, and some persons thought risky but 1t was a scheme that was in accordance with the suggestion of the landlords and in a quite unexpected way it had become impracticable. suppoaing that the landlords were in position to tn- sist upon the act being carried out as 1t stood, the result would be that very heavy tax under the terms of the act would fall upon the Irish ratepay- er Now. he thought, the Iandlortfs, the tenants. the government. and all were agreed that that was not contem- plated. though 1t was In plain words in the. act. They did notewant that to happen, but it would happen tneRit- ably if the act were left as 1t was. Therefore. they joined with others in suggesting that the Irish ratepayer should be saved from that heavy tax with which he is threatened under tn words of tho act. At the same time they quite objected to having tho whole burden shifted of the Patepay- CTS on to the shoulders of the land lords. They wished 1t shifted on to the shoulders of the British taxpayer The government. however. said they would not put it on the British or the Irish taxpayer that 1t must be borne by the Irish landlords and the, Irish tenants.
 On that point they distinctly differed from the government. When they were asked for an alternation on the act they might say-"If you give us Ime reasonable alternative as an option we may help you and we will offer such suggestions as may help to les sen the loss on the British taxpayer" That was on-committal
 Lord Kenmore's scheme which had