The Bill recognises that these pending agreements must be settled with cash if cash is demanded, but it limits cash payments to five millions a year, and offers in lieu of cash or as part payment guaranteed 2 per cent. land stock at ninety-two. If cash is insisted upon it will take ten years or more to liquidate these claims. The loss to tenants will be enormous and the poorhouse doors will open for many landlords. If stock at ninety-two is taken, landlords will sustain a loss of 8 per cent. The Chief Secretary does not apparently attach much importance to that. All his argument is founded on the assumption that selling landowners have made extraordinary good bargains, far above anything contemplated by the Land Conference. That does not appear to be the case. In fact he himself admits that it is not. Mr. Birrell tells us that the average rate of purchase is twenty-four and a half years of second term rent. Taking a rent of 100l. as an example and assuming 3 per cent. interest to be paid on the purchase price pending settlement, he explains that the owner will receive 861. According to Land Conference terms he should receive 90l. He makes a loss of 41. If he takes stock at ninety-two he makes a further loss of 8l., and Mr. Birrell forgot to mention that, as the average price all over Ireland of all rents is 22.9 years' purchase, the loss to a landlord may be heavier than he admits. The provisions of the Bill for liquidating accomplished sales are insufficient. A grave danger will be incurred if the completion of these existing agreements is not consummated within a reasonable period, because in the meantime an intolerable burden is being borne by landlords and by tenants. The position they are placed in is very cruel, and one that surely Parliament ought not to witness unmoved. If default does not strictly represent a definite breach of faith of actual pledges, it is at least directly contrary to the whole spirit of the assurances which were given by Parliament when the Act was under discussion, and to the whole object, meaning, and intention of the Act itself. Parliament gave a pledge by word if not by act in 1903, and it cannot honestly go back upon it.

The principal condition for purchases in the future is the substitution of a 3 per cent. stock for the present stock bearing interest at 2, and the payment in stock at market prices instead of in cash. Two objections which appear unsurmountable present themselves to this proposition. A higher interest-bearing stock necessitates an increase in the purchasing occupier's annual charge; and paying the selling owner in a fluctuating stock involves fluctuating prices. Any change in the annuity rate is greatly to be deprecated. Assume and it is a fairly accurate assumption-that one half of the tenants have already bought, and that the other half buy in the future. The annuity rate of the second half will exceed, by a quarter per cent., the annuity rate of the first half. But, it may be argued, no injustice will occur, because prices will be proportionately lowered. Prices have

automatically fixed themselves in provinces and counties, and a long and bitter conflict might take place before another standard was established an eventuality that should be guarded against at almost any cost. But assume prices to be proportionately reduced. What would happen? No real grievance would exist, but an apparent grievance would exist quite sufficient to give the agitator his opportunity. The first half tenants would be urgently reminded that they had paid so many years' purchase more than the second half; and the second half tenants would be counselled to refuse to pay a higher annuity than the first half. In the same small country you cannot expect one set of tenants to be content in paying a higher rate of annuity for their holdings than another set of tenants who happen to have come to agreements before the 1st of November. Nor will the earlier purchasers rest easy in having given a greater number of years' purchase than their later purchasing neighbours. Such a differentiation would, in the course of time, be certain to produce dissatisfaction if not turmoil. It would be a premium on disorder. The land settlement was not a mere commercial measure for enabling B to buy land of C. It was a scheme of social reform intended to heal the old wounds which for years past have contributed to retard the progress of the country. If only for this reason, therefore, every possible cause which might lead to a re-opening of those wounds should be avoided. On the assumption that a higher interest-bearing stock must be issued, which in parenthesis I do not accept, can anything be done to avoid increasing the annual payments of the tenants ? It seems possible.

No additional charge can in justice be placed upon tenants. Depreciation of guaranteed Irish land stock is largely due to disorder in Ireland, and it is hard that landlords should suffer for that; but some sacrifice may in equity be expected from them because their position contrasts favourably in two respects with that of the tenants. The Act of 1903 carried out Land Conference recommendations for landlords more accurately than it did those affecting tenants, and the money market has moved in their favour. The Land Conference considered that trustee securities would yield 3 or at most 3 per cent., and they were justified in that assumption in 1902. But since then the powers of trustees have been enlarged, and gilt-edged securities have so declined in value that there can be little doubt that if the Conference met to-day they would amend their report by substituting 3 or 4 per cent. This appreciation in the income to be obtained from trustee securities is due to exactly the same causes operating on the money market as have produced the deadlock in the provision of funds for financing the Act. The landlord who sells to-day can invest to an advantage proportionate to the disadvantage which is experienced by the Government in placing Irish land stock.

The Treasury is entitled under the terms of the Act to revise the

VOL. LXIV-No. 382

4 B

distribution of the grant in aid commonly called the bonus as from the 1st of November last. The bonus, I may explain for the benefit of English readers, was the sum provided as a free gift by Parliament to bridge the difference between the sum which the tenants could afford to pay and that which the landlords could afford to take. It was calculated that one hundred millions would suffice to transfer the title of agricultural land in Ireland from the owner to the occupier. Twelve millions were given as a free bonus to be distributed at the rate of 12 per cent., the rate to be revisable every five years. Of this twelve millions, rather more than 84 millions have been distributed or are distributable upon agreements for sale already lodged, and there remains of the bonus only about three millions for the aid of future transactions. The exact value of outstanding property cannot be accurately estimated. Mr. Wyndham put the whole amount at 100,000,000l. Mr. Birrell assesses it at 180,000,000l. It is impossible to read Mr. Wyndham's speech on the introduction of the new Bill, without coming to the conclusion that though his estimate was a little too small, Mr. Birrell's estimate is a great deal too high, and it is perfectly certain that if the Act is kept within its legitimate field of operation, the original estimate of 100,000,000l. will not need to be increased beyond 20,000,000l. or at most 30,000,000l. Whether that be so or not, the Chief Secretary held out hopes that an additional grant in aid will be made. It will indeed be wise of Parliament if it will make a fresh grant in aid sufficient to bring up the bonus to 12 per cent. on whatever sum is required to complete the operation of land purchase; but the rate of distribution of the bonus should be lowered. The difference between a 23 per cent. and a 3 per cent. stock must be met somehow. It can be met only in one of three ways. By increasing the tenants' annual payments, which is most inexpedient; by a prolongation of the period of amortisation, which is also undesirable; or by diversion of a sufficient proportion of the bonus, a method which does not appear open to the same objection. Landlords have certainly benefited considerably by the state of the money market, and the rate of bonus could be equitably reduced. The bonus might be divided between landlord and tenant. The Treasury might be empowered to devote to the sinking fund sufficient of the bonus to balance the increasing interest the tenant will have to pay in consequence of the issue of higher interest-bearing stock; and the rest of the bonus should be distributable among landlords. Thus the additional burden would be borne without disturbing average prices or increasing the annual payments of tenant purchasers, and consequently with less friction than is likely to occur if annuity rates are increased and prices have to come down.

Finality is the one object to be aimed at. Ireland can never be quiet until land purchase is allowed to proceed with all possible speed on fixed and approved lines. Such lines are incorporated in the Act

of 1903. That Act has proved its capacity, if financed, to deal with the problem, and its main provisions ought not to be interfered with. The condition of the money market cannot be foreseen. It may not be necessary to issue stock at 3 per cent., but if the bonus is applied in the manner suggested the variations in the market might be automatically met. Dear money means good investment for landlords and implies a lower rate of bonus. Cheap money means bad investment and demands a higher rate of bonus. In the one case more, and in the other less, of the bonus would be retained by the Treasury. Fluctuations of the market might be met without injustice by periodic adjustment of the rate of distribution. The bonus is the one element of the Act of 1903 which it is enacted may be varied without infringing the provisions of that Act.

What are called the Zones are, I gather from Mr. Birrell's speech, to be in some way interfered with. I trust not. Objection to the Zones is a mere fad. The Land Conference decided against the opinion of some of its members, myself included, that sales should be direct between landlord and tenant. That being so the object of the Zones is to expedite sales. They mean that if the annuity payable on the agreed price involves a reduction on the rent stated to be a fair reduction by the Conference the sale was to go through without revaluation of the land. If the reduction was less than the specified limit, re-valuation would be made in the interest of the mortgagee the State, and if the reduction exceeded the limit, the case would be investigated in the interest of the remainder-man to guard against an improvident sale. It is almost ludicrous of the Chief Secretary to declare in one sentence that his one object is to push on land purchase and in another sentence to speak of abolishing the Zones. If in all cases it is incumbent upon the Estates Commissioners to take expert opinion on the value of land, to hear evidence in the first instance and appeals, a century or more will not suffice to conclude land purchase in Ireland.

He

A new method of applying the bonus is introduced. It is to be distributed in inverse proportion to the number of years given for the property. This sounds very fair, but is not. The encumbered owner can afford to sell cheaper than the unencumbered owner. can find more profitable investment for his money. The proposed method of distribution imposes a penalty on prudence, and may possibly interfere with the wise provision of the Act which allows a year's arrears to be included in a purchase price. But it will benefit those among the landed gentry who are in the direst need and for that reason it may be unobjectionable. Under the Bill the charge for excess stock is very properly assumed by the State. The burden. will not be serious, as the cash issue is limited to the fifty-two millions required to satisfy lodged agreements at the rate of five millions a year. Guaranteed 23 per cent. stock is offered in lieu of cash.

The

loss involved is too heavy. The price should be 95, or the difference between par and market price should be equally divided between the Treasury and the recipient of the stock. No option of cash payment obtains in future transactions. Landlords must take the new 3 per cent. stock. It will be at a discount, and the bonus is reduced from 12 to 3 per cent. The combined loss will be too great. In this case also the difference between par and market price should be shared between the landlord and the State; and an additional bonus is essential. Mr. Birrell's object is to do all he can to hasten the progress of land purchase.' Has he in his anxiety for greater speed pulled the wrong lever and put on the brakes? The Bill in its present condition appears admirably designed to bring land purchase in Ireland to a full stop.

Space forbids any real consideration of the congested districts problem. It differs in one important respect from what may be termed ordinary land purchase. In the latter case it is simply a question of enabling an occupying tenant to purchase the landlord's interest and thus become the owner of the fee simple of his farm. In the former case, and looking at it in its simplest form, untenanted land is required either to add to existing un-economic holdings or to be carved into small but economic holdings upon which migrants from a congested district may be settled, and in the case of untenanted land both interests lie in the owner.

It cannot be denied that the contemplated action of the State is contrary to all the teachings of political economy, and is flying right in the face of the rigid Manchester school of Free Traders who have always claimed that trade and industry should be permitted to find their own natural channels and ought not to be diverted by artificial means. But the terrible condition of the congested West fully justifies the interference of the State, even though the land acquired may be diverted from a more profitable to a less profitable use; but the operation will be expensive, and I doubt if the allocated funds will prove sufficient.

The Chief Secretary, with delightful naïveté, leaves the vexed question of migration for Ireland to decide for herself. He cannot, he says, offer police protection to migrants. But nevertheless he must settle whether land is to be compulsorily acquired solely for the relief of congestion, or may be devoted to other purposes.

Compulsory purchase is to be introduced. I have no horror of compulsion, of course on fair terms; and I would like to see it universally applied for many reasons, among them, because partial application seems likely to cause much confusion. Compulsory purchase and cash payments will be proceeding alongside of voluntary sales and payments in depreciated stock, and, to add to the confusion, two departments will be engaged in the same operation in the same locality. Therein lies the weak point in the proposals