SMALL-HOLDING OWNERSHIP 237 



scheme came into operation on a large scale, these 

 sums would prove to be but a very small proportion 

 of the amount of money required. ; 10,000,000 would 

 not go far in such a case in a great country like 

 England and Wales. Also 3 J- per cent, at the present 

 value of money seems to be a low rate at which to 

 calculate the purchase annuity whereby the Treasury 

 must be repaid. 



It is true, as Mr. Jesse Collings points out to me, 

 that in the case of the Irish Act the purchasing tenant 

 is not required to pay down anything, the whole of 

 the purchase money being advanced. But, as he also 

 points out, "the mistake in the Irish Act is that the 

 interest is too low," and the 2 guaranteed stock 

 raised to provide the fund has in consequence sunk 

 to about 80. Indeed, were it not for the ^"12,000,000 

 voted by Parliament as a kind of bonus the plan 

 would not work at all, especially as the Irish tenant 

 is only required to pay ten shillings, or one-half per 

 cent, annually, as a sinking-fund to liquidate the 

 principal of the debt. 



Of course the truth is that this Irish land- 

 purchase can scarcely be looked upon as a purely 

 business transaction, and therefore is almost useless as 

 a model or an argument. It must be considered in 

 the light of a boon wrung from the British Treasury 

 by the masters of seventy or eighty votes in Parlia- 

 ment. When our home agriculture can command 

 the same number of votes it may expect similar 

 advantages, but probably not before. 



Irish land-reformers, in short, have been and are 

 in a position to back their appeals by a plentiful 

 use of the Parliamentary shillalah. English land- 

 reformers and agriculturists are but strengthless 



