Nationalist politicians, of course, diagnose the situation very differently.  Apply suitable remedial measures, say the Unionists, to the social and economic conditions of the country, and it is not unreasonable to hope that political discontent—­or, in other words, the demand for Home Rule—­will gradually die away of itself.  Give us Home Rule, say the Nationalists, and all other things will be added to us.

The main object of the present paper is to give a bird’s eye view of Unionist policy in relation to rural development in Ireland during the eventful years 1885-1905.  It does not pretend to deal with the larger issue raised between Unionism and Nationalism; but incidentally, it will be found to throw some interesting side lights upon it.

The Irish Question in its most essential aspect is a Farmers’ Question.  The difficulties which it presents have their deepest roots in an unsatisfactory system of land tenure, excessive sub-division of holdings, and antiquated methods of agricultural economy.

Mr. Gladstone endeavoured to deal with the system of land tenure in the two important Acts of 1870 and 1881; but the system of dual ownership which those Acts set up introduced, perhaps, as many evils as they removed.  It became more and more evident that the only effectual remedy lay in the complete transference of the ownership of the land from the landlord to the occupying tenant.  The successful application of this remedy with anything like fairness to both sides absolutely demanded the use of State credit on a large scale.  The plan actually adopted in a succession of Land Acts passed by Unionist Governments, beginning with the Ashbourne Act of 1885, and ending with the Wyndham Act of 1903, is broadly speaking as follows:—­The State purchases the interest of the landlord outright and vests the ownership in the occupying tenant subject to a fixed payment for a definite term of years.  These annual payments are not in the nature of rent:  they represent a low rate of interest on the purchase money, plus such contribution to a sinking fund as will repay the principal in the term of years for which the annual payments are to run.  The practical effect of this arrangement is that the occupier becomes the owner of his holding, subject to a terminable annual payment to the State of a sum less in amount than the rent he has had to pay heretofore.

The successful working of the scheme obviously depends on the credit of the State, in other words, its power of borrowing at a low rate of interest.  In this respect the Imperial Government has an immense advantage over any possible Home Rule Government:  indeed, it is doubtful whether any Home Rule Government could have attempted this great reform without wholesale confiscation of the landlords’ property.  Here then in Land Purchase and the abolition of dual ownership, we have one of the twin pillars on which, on its constructive side, the Irish policy of the Unionist party rests.  But to solve the problem