they have got their revenues, and that they mean to keep them if they can-a good downright practical view of the subject. Others tell us that the State can give, but cannot take away. It refreshes one's faith in the progress of the human mind to observe that the bulk of the public has grown deaf to the charm of these arguments, charm they never so wisely. It is to be hoped that the nation will proceed calmly but sternly to a great act of longdeferred justice, perfectly regardless, as Mr. Carlyle expresses it, of the screamings and lamentations of doleful creatures. At the same time too much must not be expected from one act of justice, when many are due. Disappointment must not be felt if an instalment does not produce the effects which commonly result from paying the full sum. In a word, it must not be supposed that doing what is right in one direction will exonerate us from doing the same in others, which are equally urgent. We must not forget that settling the Church question is only a preliminary to settling the more vital one concerning the land.

II-THE LAND.

THE remarkable consensus of opinion which has been manifested with regard to the inauguration of religious equality in Ireland is strikingly absent with reference to the far deeper and more vital question of the Tenure of Land in that country. Theologians and ecclesiastics have, so to speak, had their day; they can look to little beyond fair and equal justice, while any favouritism towards them on the part of the State is becoming daily more and more discredited. But landlordism is still a mighty power, upon which thousands cast reverent eyes. A bishop lamenting over his invaded privileges is not unfrequently more ridiculed than condoled with. But a landlord protesting, however unnecessarily, against interference with the sacred right of property, is still felt to be a solemn object, suggestive of grave and anxious meditation. Many new ideas will have to be acquired, and many old ones laid aside, before a clearness with reference to the Land question at all equal to that which we

have seen concerning the Established Church is likely to be generally attained.

Nothing can exceed the confusion and obscurity in which the whole subject is involved, and, so to speak, all but buried. So anxious is each disputant to have his say, that no one thinks of taking heed of what is said by his neighbour. It is a fierce conflict waged in the night. The adversaries do not even use the same language. When one speaks of improvements and the welfare of the country, he means something very different from what an opponent means who uses the same words. To join false issues is all but universal; to assert vehemently what was never denied, to demonstrate elaborately what has never been called in question, is a sort of rule of the game in this controversy. There is not even anything like agreement as to what are the ends and objects of the strife. While one set of disputants tells us that the Land question in Ireland is precisely the most urgent and important which can possibly be entertained, another set tells us with equal confidence that there is no Land question at all, and the whole affair is a bubble blown up by interested agitators. Perhaps the best mode of commencing this inquiry will be to ascertain these points first. Is there a Land question? and, if so, In what does it consist?

IS THERE A LAND QUESTION? It is evident that this question may be answered in twenty ways, according to the bias and position of the respondent. If, before the abolition of the slave-trade, a planter had been asked whether there was a Nigger Question, in the sense of the abolitionist, he would have answered that decidedly there was not. That is to say, he would not have denied that slavery existed; he would have denied that it was a thing to be complained of. In a similar spirit the landlords of the present day deny that there is a Land question in Ireland. They do not, of course, deny that dissatisfaction or rather "agitation" exists; they deny that it has any meaning or reason in it. What," asked Lord Clanricarde recently in the House of Lords, "what was the condition of Ireland now? There never was a time when it was less necessary to take extraordinary and novel action upon this subject than at present. The condition of neither landlords nor tenants presented any extraordinary difficulty." And his lordship proceeds to throw the blame of the attention which has been directed to the subject upon the judges. Further on he said: "There was no occasion for a revolution. This year rents had been easily collected and most cheerfully paid in Ireland. Profits had been made by the farmers, and this year the landlords had had

66

less trouble than perhaps at any former period." (Times, Feb. 25, 1868.) And Lord Dufferin holds language which points to the same conclusion. He declares that fixity of tenure would not materially have impeded the exodus after the potato famine, which must mean that Irish holders would have been as unsettled and as uncomfortable with fixity of tenure as they have been without it.1 Lord Rosse says: "At present things are steadily improving." And an "Irish Peer," who has written a noteworthy pamphlet on the "Irish Difficulty," says, that if they are only preserved from "an agrarian law, subverting the foundations of all landed property --and the compulsory granting of leases he would consider to be such a subversion-"Irish agriculture will soon become assimilated to that of England." Now all these utterances obviously mean only this, that the Irish proprietors are, on the whole, satisfied with the actual state of things. The fact is not surprising, and has never been called in question. People generally are content with what they deliberately and intentionally bring

about.

Fortunately the condition and progress of a

1 "Irish Emigration and Tenure of Land in Ireland." Willis and Sotheran, 1867.

2 "The Irish Difficulty," by an Irish Peer, p. 60. Hodges and Smith, Dublin.