The features of the Irish Land Act (1903), founded, as they were, on experience and the consent of all parties concerned, became widely popular in Ireland.  But, by Mr. Birrell’s Act of 1909, they were all distorted or destroyed.  A solemn treaty, framed in the interest of Ireland, was torn up to deck with its tatters the triumph of Mr. Dillon’s unholy alliance with the British Treasury.  The effect of this betrayal on the prospects of Irish agriculture will appear from a recital of the changes made by Mr. Birrell’s Act, followed by a comparison of the results obtained under the two Acts.  From that comparison I shall proceed to an examination of the reasons alleged for the breach of faith, and a statement of the Unionist party’s pledge to continue their policy of 1903.  I shall then conclude by inviting all who care for Ireland to weigh the prospects of Irish Agriculture under the Union against its prospects under Home Rule.

Changes made by the Act of 1909.—­(1) Instead of cash payments landlords are to receive stock at three per cent. issued on a falling market, and this stock cannot appreciate because, owing to the embarrassment of Irish estates, about half of each issue must be thrown back on the market for the redemption of mortgages; a result fatal to land purchase and detrimental to the credit of the State. (2) Instead of paying L3 5_s._ per L100, tenants are to pay L3 10_s._ without any reduction in the period of repayment.  The sinking fund remains at 10_s._ and the interest L3 is, for the first time since land purchase was attempted, placed at a higher rate than in the preceding Purchase Act, whilst the whole instalment of L3 10_s._ is raised, not only above the rate of the Act of 1903, but also above the rates, diminished by decadal reductions, of purchasers under still earlier Acts.  This again, in view of these reductions and of periodic revisions of rent under the Land Law Act of 1881, is fatal to purchase. (3) The bonus of L12,000,000—­on the application of which all parties agreed in 1903—­was diverted from the unanimous policy of that year and brought in aid of Mr. Dillon’s hobby, which all parties then rejected.  Mr. Dillon is at liberty to rejoice over the ruin of one landlord more than over the salvation of 99,000 tenants.  The laws of lunacy do not, and ought not to, touch him.  But there is no reason why taxpayers should minister to his peculiar pleasure, with the result of postponing indefinitely any settlement of the Irish land question. (4) By reverting to inspection for security delay is substituted for speed, and speed is necessary in the conclusion of bargains that are themselves the result of prolonged negotiations; the more so when, as now, owing to the substitution of stock for cash, the seller cannot know what his bargain will turn out to be; and the buyer, owing to the block in agreements under the Act of 1903, cannot know when his bargain will take effect.  In most cases it will not do