would have a righteous and strong case to the extent of injury actually done, through the operation of the existing law, and the extinction of their reversionary rights, which would follow, were my project adopted; and losses caused by reductions of rent, in name voluntary, but really due to the influence of the Land and the National Leagues, and to the circumstance that the Act of 1881 has generally reduced the standard of rent, ought, I think, fairly to be taken into account. The extent of the detriment, in most instances, could probably be ascertained exactly only through an appeal to a Court of Justice, but a rough measure is not impossible. The value of English estates has been lessened rather more than a fourth from natural causes; that of Irish estates has been diminished already certainly more than a half-in fact they have no place in the open market-and under my scheme it would be perhaps even more diminished. On the other hand, just as is the claim of the landlords of Ireland to compensation, a reasonable compromise in these matters, we must not forget, can alone be looked for; they need not expect and will not receive a complete indemnity as things now stand, and they should aim at obtaining not what is strictly due, but what, in view of all the facts of the case, a Legislature far from favourable to them is likely, under democratic influence, to concede.

Looking at the question, then, from this point of view, what relief can be afforded to Irish landlords? Under my scheme they would be almost deprived of the reversionary rights they still possess; and I would compensate them for these by the advance of a sum, in the nature of a fine, but not to exceed a year's or a yearand-a-half's rent. This sum might be raised by creating a stock of some kind guaranteed by the State; repayment of the advance and the interest should be secured by making the loan a charge on the landlord's and the tenant's interests, the fee-farm rent which the tenant would pay of course being pro tanto lessened; and as this reduction would be extremely small, the fine should be paid to the landlord directly, whether his estate was mortgaged or settled or not-in order to avoid expense and delay-unless objections were made after sufficient notice. An advance like this would be a real boon, after the trying events of the last few years, and certainly it would be amply secured; but compensation ought not to stop at this point, it should be extended to further limits. All Irish estates are subject to rents and other annual charges payable to the State, and Irish landlords may fairly claim that these outgoings should be reduced or commuted in proportion to the diminution in the value of their lands, which could be ascribed to the interference of the State, taking this term in a broad and liberal sense. This relief

would be by no means trivial, but it appears to me very far from sufficient. The immense majority of Irish estates are, to a greater or lesser extent, encumbered; the State having deliberately cut down the fund set apart to bear these charges, especially by the abolition of solemn leases, I insist that it has an equal right to deal freely with the charges themselves; and it would be surely iniquitous, in the highest degree, that if Parliament, in the public interest, should take away that which belonged to what was practically a partnership in a common estate, the whole loss should be laid on a single partner. I would certainly, after what has occurred in Ireland, interfere boldly with encumbrances on land; and I justify the suggestion on the well-known equity of making a general average in a common shipwreck. I do not, however, entirely agree with those who accept the general principle, but draw in this matter a broad distinction between mortgages and family charges, and insist that the first must be deemed inviolable, and that a reduction should only be made in the second. This distinction, though in the main well-founded, would not coincide with the real facts, or be in accord with true equity. Many arrangements, which take the form of mortgages, are really in the nature of family charges, as, for instance, a case by no means uncommon, where sisters, being parceners of land, sell their shares to the husband of another sister, and take mortgages for the purchasemoney; and I might add hundreds of examples of the kind. On the other hand, many charges which might be fairly described as 'family charges,' though they do not assume the shape of mortgages, are entitled to at least equal respect; as where a younger brother assigns his portion charged on the family estate for full value, or where family charges are paid off through trust deeds or other arrangements; and here again I could multiply instances. It is obvious, therefore, that the true distinction is between charges which represent money paid actually, or its full equivalent, regard being had to present values;-constructive considerations, even that of marriage, in my judgment, should be excluded-and those which do not fulfil this description; and these, I think, might fairly be treated differently.

Bearing this distinction in mind, accordingly, I will call the first set of charges1 'charges for value,' and all others 'voluntary charges;' and I will consider the treatment applicable to both. The encumbrances affecting Irish land, so far as regards the rights of landlords, have been estimated at about £70,000,000; and probably 'charges for value' amount to £18,000,000, say a fourth of that

The term 'charge' would include terminable charges, e. g. jointures. The term 'landlord' would include inferior landlords.

I

sum, voluntary charges' amounting to £52,000,000. Many Irish landlords propose that the State should advance, either in cash or in stock, a sum sufficient to pay off these charges, repayment being assured at a low rate of interest, and the principal and interest being extinguished, as in the case of loans under the Improvement Acts, by a series of successive yearly payments. This project, however, would pledge the credit of the State to an extent to which the general tax-payer would certainly, and I think justly, object; it will never be sanctioned by a British minister; and, besides, encumbrances on Irish land ought, in my judgment, as a matter of right, to bear a part, and not a small part, of the loss resulting from legislation and its far-reaching consequences. suggest a scheme which would be more practicable, and consonant, I believe, with equity. The Irish Courts could easily ascertain, on petition, what the encumbrances were that burdened the estates of Irish landlords; and, this having been done, they could soon determine what reduction ought to be made from these charges, regard being had to the amount of detriment done to the market value of the landlord's property owing to the policy adopted by the State. As regards the rate of reduction I would make no distinction between charges for value' and voluntary charges,' assuming, of course, that these last were valid; but charges wholly, or in part, unsecured from want of a sufficient margin of land, should be dealt with upon a different principle, and be either compounded or allowed to perish. All this seems to involve delay, and litigation upon an immense scale; but were the duty devolved on the Land Commission, and on capable Commissioners dependent on it, the work would not be very tedious or costly-an appeal should lie, of course, to the Court of Chancery-and the process would be less open to objections of this kind than any procedure could be under a scheme of the general expropriation of Irish landlords, the alternative which must be kept in view. The scale of reduction having been fixed, and the sums fairly due having been settled, I propose that the existing charges should be extinguished, with the different rights and remedies attached; but in lieu of these the Courts should have powers to grant debentures to the persons entitled, representing the monies allotted to them, these debentures being charged on the land encumbered before by the old charges, and being mortgages to all intents and purposes, but negotiable and transferable in the easiest way, and certain therefore to pass in the open market. Here, however, I would draw a broad distinction between 'charges for value' and 'voluntary charges,' and this on obviously solid grounds. The debentures, which would be the equivalent of the first, should be guaranteed by the credit of

the State; the other debentures should be not so secured, and a guarantee to that extent only might receive, I hope, the sanction of Parliament. Until the scheme should have been worked out remedies by foreclosure, by sale, and by action on personal covenants, should be suspended; but receivers might be appointed to collect the interest due on existing charges, and arrears of interest should be taken into account in estimating the sums finally adjudged to be due. Lastly, though a scheme of this kind, I believe, would not be largely opposed in Ireland, I propose, should the owner of any charge, whether 'for value' or 'voluntary' only, object to the settlement made by the Court, he should have a right to claim such a part of the landlord's estate, that is, under my scheme, of the fee-farm rent, as the Court should consider a just equivalent. Grants of this class would be certainly few.

This plan for relieving Irish landlords is certainly not without defects for instance, it would do something, but not much, for landlords completely free from encumbrance. This class, however, is an extremely small one; and the plan, I maintain, is perfectly just, within the limits I have laid down, and is practicable without much expense or difficulty. Let us glance for the last time at the general scheme for settling the Irish land I have briefly described. It would more than assure the tenant his rights, and would practically make him owner of his farm; it would call for sacrifices, no doubt, from the landlord, but he would be indemnified at least in part, and it would leave him in a much better position than he could be were he bought out by the State. It would do justice, also, between the landlord and those who have charges on his estate, and it could be carried out without pledging the credit of the State to any great extent, for the contingent liability of the tax-payer would not exceed, I think, £25,000,000, and this liability could scarcely arise. It would possess, in addition, the immense advantage of preserving for Ireland the landlord class-a necessary element in the national life, whatever babblers of the moment say; and, in short, compared to any expropriation scheme-and this comparison should be always made-it would be infinitely more just, more safe, less violent, and, above all, it would not be like the alternative, as I believe, impossible. In concluding this article I shall make three remarks, and these, I venture to hope, may deserve attention. To the success of the project I have sketched, or to any plan for settling the Irish Land Question, it is necessary that order shall be restored in Ireland and that law shall be generally obeyed. I assume this as a sine quá non, but it does. not fall in with my present purpose to speculate how this shall be accomplished. I shall merely remark that the scheme I suggest

would, I believe, do much to attain that end, and certainly would. do more than any plan of general expropriation and Land Purchase. Again, the reform of which I have traced the outline should be the type of the Irish Land System and the general plan of land tenure; but facilities might be reasonably given to Irish landlords to sell their interests to tenants or in the general market. Lord Ashbourne's Act, in some respects modified and enlarged, ought to suffice for this; but the process should be made slow and tentative, and care should be taken that the annual charge payable under it. by purchasing tenants should be nearly equal to the fee-farm rents secured to the landlords under my project. Lastly, I am aware that the settlement I propose is not in accord with current English opinion, which, vague, ill-informed, and fluctuating as it is, seems to incline to an heroic experiment of generally expropriating Irish landlords, without counting the results or the cost. English1 opinion, or what is called by that name, is, however, an unsafe guide in this matter: the Irish land is unhappily strewn with monuments of English misdeeds and errors, and in our time the Encumbered Estates Act, propounded by English thinkers and statesmen as the saving health of the Irish Land System, has proved an instrument of confiscation, immense and unjust, and a lamentable and complete failure. One who has studied the subject may, in these circumstances, refuse to accept dogmas in the main English; and may fairly propose a plan of his own, for the settlement of the Land System of Ireland, in his opinion very much better than the ill-considered schemes at this moment popular2.

WILLIAM O'CONNOR MORRIS.

1 English opinion has, in my time, run violently in favour of no less than four conflicting policies about Irish land. From 1847 to 1850 it preached the wholesale eviction of Irish tenants. It then clamoured for the wholesale eviction of landlords through the Encumbered Estates Court. Next it welcomed with delight the Gladstonian compromises of 1870 and 1881. With equal knowledge and steadiness it is now leaning towards the general expropriation of Irish landlords, provided always that the British tax-payer shall run no risk. The first two policies have proved wretched failures; the third is now condemned; ought not this to suggest doubts as to the wisdom of the fourth?

This article was written some months before the appearance of the remarkable letter of Mr. Bright to Lord Kilmorey on the Irish land. It is truly gratifying to me to find that my views coincide in principle with those of a statesman preeminently a sound authority on the Irish Question. I have differed slightly from Mr. Bright in details, perhaps because I am acquainted with the defects in the working of the Act of 1881, & special kind of knowledge which Mr. Bright cannot be supposed to possess.