THE LOYAL WOULD PAY FOR THE DISLOYAL.

I think there is some misapprehension on this point. No scheme can be proposed which does not involve the introduction of a security in case of failure on the part of the original debtor; but a security is in fact a third party who has not received full consideration for the contract. This must always be so, and I contend that under the suggested scheme the share of the risk borne by the well-disposed will be smaller than under any other conceivable plan.

THE PLAN IS MR. GLADSTONE'S.

It has been stated that my plan is simply that of Mr. Gladstone with an undesirable addition, and the supposed fact is made the occasion of taunting the Unionist party and the landlords of Ireland with their non-acceptance of Mr. Gladstone's proposals. There is a grave misunderstanding here. As far as I am aware, the true objection was not to Mr. Gladstone's proposals in themselves, but to a proviso contained in his Bill which appears to have been forgotten by the Gladstonian party: the sting of the Bill lay in its tail. This Bill shall only become law on the passage of the Bill for the better government of Ireland.' In other words, we offer you, the landlords, a bribe in cash on the simple condition that you give us a receipt in full of all demands, that you abandon your principles, that you consent to legislation which you believe to be disastrous to your country, that you desert every man who has trusted you and stood by you-in a word, on condition that you sell yourselves, honour, principle, and conviction. If you do this, we on our part will fulfil an honourable obligation and not rob you. It is possible to disapprove of this condition without being considered an enemy of Mr. Gladstone's Bill.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR A LAND PURCHASE BILL AT ALL.

To this I would merely reply that if that be so my suggestions of course are beside the mark. I have throughout assumed that a Purchase Bill was actually contemplated, and I have contented myself with pointing out a method by which such a Bill might be made a success. If the majority of the electors think that the state of things in Ireland is so promising that it is best to go on 'pegging away' on the present lines, there is no more to be said. Personally I should not in such an event form one of the majority. With sincere respect to Mr. Bright's high authority, I do not believe that we have left the landlords either sufficient power or sufficient responsibility to allow them to become a good and useful element under present conditions in Ireland. If I saw a reasonable prospect of the people of the United Kingdom so acting as to enable the landlords to maintain the

rights the law gives them, I should doubtless change my opinion; but I do not see such a prospect, nor do I see in anything Mr. Bright says any sign of an intention to put things back on a footing on which the landlords can act with any advantage. An Irish landlord cannot raise his rent; he cannot sell his holding; he has no inducement to spend money in improving his estate when the whole amount may be practically confiscated by the decision of a semijudicial court the next day. We have prevented him performing any useful duty-doubtless for very good reasons--and we cannot now reasonably expect him to fill a place from which we have for eight years been trying to oust him. I venture to believe that Mr. Bright does not fully realise the wreck that has been made by the Land Acts. If I had a wishing-cap, I would wish what Mr. Bright wishes; but we have to deal with what is possible, not with what is desirable.

In conclusion let me point out that the scheme I have suggested is bounded by no hard and fast lines as to application. It is consistent with Home Rule, and it is consistent with the continuance of present arrangements. It may be applied to a part or to the whole of the Irish rents. The figures I have given may be varied; the incidence of the taxes may be altered; but I contend that the main point will be untouched. At the outset I put before myself this question: Can a scheme be devised by which dual ownership can be put an end to in Ireland, by which law-breaking can be overcome, by which the English tax-payer can be relieved from liability, and which shall be economically sound?'

I claim to have given a correct answer to the problem, and I maintain in addition that hitherto no rival plan has been suggested which even approximately fulfils the essential conditions.

H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER.

The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake

to return unaccepted MSS.

Art Sales and Christie's, 60-78
Atheism, Artisan, 111–126

American and English press compared, Athéne, 79-108
219-233

American Opinion on the Irish Question,

ANA (Prof.), on coral reefs and FARMERS, a country parson's experi-