is, the peasantry of Ireland are in a state of deplorable penury-are scarce⚫ly half employed-are barbarous, depraved, disaffected, and rebelliousand are composed almost exclusively of blind, fanatical Catholics.

With regard to the penury of the Irish peasantry, it is not accidental,it has not been produced by fluctuations of prices, although these have no doubt greatly aggravated it. It existed before high prices were known, it continued when they were obtained, and it remains when they can be obtained no longer-and, amidst all its fluctuations, it never can rise even to poverty. Now, what causes this penu.ry with regard to the occupiers of land? Oppressive taxes? No! There are scarcely any taxes demanded. Bad soil? No, the soil is very fertile. The expense of cultivation ? No, this is extremely low. The want of a market? No, Ireland possesses a far better market for agricultural produce, than most parts of the continent. Are the people of expensive habits? No, they are remarkable for being almost less so than any other people. Here, then, is an agricultural population, distressed in the utmost degree, in the midst of all the legitimate sources of agricultural wealth! The solution of this extraordinary problem is not difficult. Does not the occupier raise a large surplus beyond his necessary expenditure? Yes. What becomes of it? The whole, save a small fraction, goes into the pockets of the landlord. Would not the retention of a portion of this surplus proportionably increase the income, in the popular sense of the word, of the occupier; and is not the want of adequate income the cause of penury in Ireland, as well as elsewhere? Undoubtedly. When nearly all that is demanded of the occupier is demanded by the landlord, is not his penury owing to the landlord, if that be demanded which leaves him only potatoes for food, and rags for clothing? Certainly, if cause and effect continue to be what they were formerly.

Nothing has appeared more wonderful to the disinterested, than the silence which has been observed respecting rents, during the discussion of the affairs of Ireland. The tithes have been declaimed against without ceasing, not merely as the cause of disaffection, but as the cause of want:

the pecuniary inability of the Irish to pay them, has been insisted on, until scarcely any one, save an Irish clergyman, has dared to deny it; but it seems to have been taken for granted that rents could not be exorbitant. The tithes are not a tax-they are not an addition to, but in effect a small fractional part of, the rent-they vary in value with the variations in the price of produce; and they cannot in law exceed, and they do not in fact reach, what the land can easily pay. Yet it was the tithes that chiefly ruined the Irish occupier! The same course was pursued with regard to the taxes, during the late agricultural distress of this country. It was the taxes-principally the taxes- - that ruined the English farmer. Our landholders maintained this, might and main, in Parliament; but what did they do then? In that princely, real English spirit which distinguishes them, they instantly set to work to ascertain what their tenants could pay, and they struck off fifteen, twenty, thirty, or forty per cent of rent immediately. They did not demand what the law made their own, and they did not even take what had been raised for them by debt and privation. They remitted what was due, and they returned what was given. The taxes remained to the occupier very nearly the same, and the markets did not, for a considerable time afterwards, advance, yet the complaints of the farmers in a great measure ceased. In Ireland, matters were different: Many of the landholders, no doubt, did reduce their rents, but then the reduction was scarcely felt by those whose need was the greatest. The English landholder is the sole landlord of all the occupiers of his land, and he lowered the rents of all, according to their necessities. The Irish landholder is the landlord of only a portion of those who till his estate, and whatever he might reduce to these, the sub-tenant had no hope of procuring anything beyond his potatoe. Rents in Ireland, taking the difference of markets and other circumstances into consideration, are very far above what they are in England; they are such as an English farmer could not possibly pay, and still we are not to think that exorbitant rents have the chief hand, or any hand at all, in distressing the Irish occupiers! This is the case, even in the nineteenth cen

tury! As an experiment, let the rents of a single parish in Ireland be reduced to the fair level of English rents, and Farliament will speedily discover what would bestow on the Irish peasantry comparative competence.

Until rents are thus lowered, the Irish peasantry must, without the operation of any other cause, be in a state of penury; and so long as the middlemen exist, the rents will remain as excessive as they now are. He who takes land to re-let it for profit, is exactly like him who buys goods to re-sell them for profit; he expects not merely a certain per centage, but the very utmost farthing that can be obtained. He has the sub-tenant constantly under his eye, he sees his crops, he knows exactly what he gets for his produce, and he takes care to keep him screwed up to the last penny that can be extracted. The writer of this article has seen much of the rustic population of England, and in every instance that has come within his knowledge of a cottage and ground being included in the take of, and re-let by a farmer, the rent was invariably from twenty to forty per cent higher, than that of similar cottages rented from the same landholder, but let directly by himself. While it is thus the constant and only aim of the jobber to extract the very utmost farthing, all things conspire to throw it into his hands. The land is divided into such small portions, that it can be entered upon almost without capital; and from this, and the density of the population, competitors are innumerable. The baleful influence of the jobbers is felt by the whole of the occupiers. They make letting by competition, that is, by virtual auction, to be the common mode of letting; and extravagantly high rents, to be the only ones known. They establish a system which the smaller proprietors are glad to follow, which the larger ones are almost pushed into, and which therefore extends over the whole of the land. Those therefore who do not take their land of the jobbers, have their rents governed in effect by those which the jobbers exact. During the war, competition rose to an amazing height among our English farmers; and had the land been in the hands of jobbers, they would, we firmly believe, even then have been distressed. We knew at that time not

a few who rented good-sized farms of proprietors, who, jobber-like, always insisted upon the highest penny. The tenants naturally, although most frugal and industrious men, and although produce was so extravagantly high, were, to use the farmers expression, always "overset;" the day of payment constantly arrived before the sum was provided, and at the very first fall of prices, they sunk into ruin. We believe that half the worth of the mass of the English landholders, and half the national benefits that flow from them, are unknown to the country. Interest, which is omnipotent with all other classes, was powerless with them; they would not tolerate competition, although it offered to double their incomes. We could name some of them who spurned farmers from their presence, who sought them, to offer thirty or forty per cent of rent more for their land, than their tenants were paying, and who did not raise their rents at all in consequence of the offer. It is true, they advanced their rents as produce advanced in price, but never in proportion. When leases expired, they would not hear of competition; and a moderate advance was made upon the old rent to the old tenant, which still left him in plentiful circumstances. If they accidentally wanted a new tenant, surrounded as they were by competitors, the farm was almost always procured through interest, or character, and at a much lower rent than might have been obtained for it, if it had been let to the highest bidder. We speak of course of the great body, and willingly admit that exceptions were numerous, particularly among the smaller proprietors. The English occupiers would then have ruined themselves by competition, but for the prohibition of their landlords, and they would even do it at this moment, if not prevented by the same cause. But Ireland !-poor Ireland-has not such landlords; the poor Irish occupier must have no land to till, and nothing to eat, if he will not agree to pay the utmost penny for the soil, that human effort and privation can extract from it.

More yet remains ;-The English landlord prides himself on having respectable tenantry, and on having his land well cultivated. If a tenant be slovenly, or idle, he is reprimand, ed and shamed into reformation

be of bad character, he is discharged. This is not confined to the larger occupiers, but it extends to the cottagers. The character and conduct of a man cannot be concealed in a village, as in a town; and if the landlord be but little on his estate himself, his steward is frequently there, and it is an important part of the steward's duty to keep himself well acquainted with the character and conduct of the tenants. With regard to the system of culture, this is in general expressly laid down by the landlord in the lease, or agreement. We hold it to be an undeniable truth, that THE LANDHOLDERS OF AL

MOST ANY COUNTRY MAY HAVE WHAT KIND OF A POPULATION THEY PLEASE

the landholders, that he ought to have said jobbers; but be this as it may, it is unquestionable, that those who could be blind and base enough to do this, would equally encourage resistance to the payment of tithes, taxes, and everything else, save exorbitant rents. The jobber must naturally nurse the rage against tithes and all other payments, save that due to himself-he must naturally connive at guilt, which enables him to receive, or to increase, his rent-and his influence, the only influence, save that of the Catholic priest, which is felt by the occupier, must naturally be exercised to distress, degrade, and brutalize the occupier. In England, know

A MORAL AND ORDERLY, OR A DEPRAVED AND TURBULENT, ONE-UP

ON THEIR ESTATES; and the English landholders, by their princely and wise conduct, have provided themselves with one of the best kind. Their tenants are not only respectable and even wealthy, but they are intelligent, active, and industrious, and they are the most moral and upright class in the community. No class in the state can vie with them, for warmth of heart and purity of life-for hospitality and benevolence-for scorn of petty chicanery and fraud-for confidence in, and brotherly kindness to each other-in a word, for all the sterling old English feelings and virtues. We testify to what we have seen. We have known them-we have known the inhabitants of towns and cities too -we have scen not a little of those who rank very far above them in society, and we are proud to offer our humble tribute to their superiority. These farmers stand at the head of village society, and they have nearly all the rest of it under their control; we therefore need not trace the character of their labourers. Now, what is the case, in this respect, in Ireland? The jobber feels no interest in the character of his tenant and his mode of cultivation, beyond what is inspired by solicitude for the rent. Many cases may be supposed, in which he would perhaps prompt, or at any rate connive at, and conceal, his tenant's crimes. If we mistake not, Sir John Newport stated last session in Parliament, that, in some parts of Ireland, the landlords encouraged illicit distillation. We hope, for the honour of

through the medium of the farmer upon the plough-boy; in Ireland, the jobbers form a chasm, which prevents the peasantry from learning anything from their betters that they ought to learn. The effects harmonize exactly with the laws of nature. While the estates of the English landholders are peopled with such inhabitants as we have described, those of the Irish landholders are peopled with savages, beggars, rebels, rogues, and murderers.

We are well aware that the Englishman and Irishman are extremely different in personal disposition, and that this difference is altogether in favour of the Englishman; but, allowing for this, we are very certain that the Irish system would produce the same fruits in England, and that the English system would produce, in a very great degree, the same fruits in Ireland.

We ought perhaps to mention the Poor Laws, as one of the causes of English superiority, so far as respects husbandry labourers. These laws, by keeping this part of the people under surveillance and control, when without masters, and by preserving them from incitement to theft, the degradation of begging, and the baleful effects which either successful or unsuccessful begging is sure to produce, are invaluable. We know what has been said against these laws-we defend not their abuses and defects-but we will say, Woe to England when they shall be abolished, even though English labourers be previously taught to exchange beef and bacon for the potatoe only!

One effect which exorbitantly high

rents are sure to produce is, to lessen the demand for, and the remuneration of, labour. The occupier must pay the precise sum for the land, he knows not how to raise it, and he sets to work to reduce the amount of his other payments as much as possible. He banters down the tithes to the lowest figure-abandons consumption-discharges his hired servants, and, with his children, labours in their steadand, if he cannot do without labourers, he grinds them down to the lowest farthing, without any regard to their necessities. The price of labour is only partially regulated by the quantity at market. Servants are not hired by auction. If the master's circumstances be good, he gives cheerfully to his labourers what he thinks they need for the support of their families, although numbers may be out of employment, and would perhaps take much less than he gives to gain it. In the latter part of the war, husbandry wages continued to be exceedingly high, although there were constantly many labourers out of employment. If the master's circumstances be bad, he keeps labour much below its natural value. Such rents, moreover, operate very powerfully against good cultivation, by binding the occupier down to the least possible expense in labour, utensils, the keep of horses, manure, &c. &c.; they are, in a word, a curse to the whole of agricultural society, for they rob and starve not only the occupier, but his servants, his tradesmen, and every one within the sphere of his influence; including even the poor brutes which drag his plough.

We have dwelt the longer on this hackneyed topic, because it is one which Parliament will not dwell up on, and because it is one of the highest importance. In our poor judgment, nothing but a reduction of rents to a moderate standard, can rescue a very large portion of the Irish peasantry from the extreme of indigence; and nothing but the annihilation of the jobbers can compass such a reduction. If it would not give employment to numbers who now need it, it would greatly benefit the occupiers, and these, in Ireland, comprehend a very large portion of the rustic population. The surplus-those who have not land, and cannot be employed-ought undoubtedly to be conveyed by government to

such parts of the empire as need inhabitants.

But although the reduction of rents in Ireland to the level of those in England, would bestow on the occupiers a decent competence, compared with what they now enjoy, it would do nothing more, so long as land is divided as at present. It would give them the necessaries, but not the comforts, of life. This, however, would be a great, a very great point accomplished. The man who in England occupies ten, twenty, thirty, or less than fifty acres of land, not in the immediate vicinity of a town, may, in the farmer's phrase, contrive to live, but he can do nothing more, however mo→ derate his rent may be. The smallness of the quantity of land which the Irish occupier holds, must, under any circumstances, prevent him from accumulating capital, and becoming a consumer in anything but the plainest food and clothing. But this is far from being the worst. Its direct and natural tendency is to make him lazy and vicious, for an idle population can scarcely avoid being a vicious one. It gives him no consideration in his own eyes, or in those of others; it will not employ him more than half his time, it makes him too much a master to be willing to become a servant, and it thus gives him a very large portion of leisure, which is almost sure to be employed in the contraction of depraved habits. This moreover keeps society in the worst possible form. In England, the respectable intelligent farmers keep the whole agricultural popu lation below them effectually under surveillance and control. In Ireland there are no such farmers; all are nearly equal; nearly all are independent, are in the lowest state of ignorance and penury, and are only kept in order by laws, which know not how to find functionaries to execute them, and which, as late events have abundantly shewn, are equally at a loss how to prevent crime, and punish the perpetrators of it.

Turning our backs therefore on the whole host of sçavants and speculators, of newspaper editors, and review writers, of projectors and partizans, and speaking only to plain practical men, who have lived amidst, and are well acquainted with, the agricultural population of England, we will ask them these

plain questions. When taxes are low, markets are tolerable, soil is good, the expense of cultivation is small, and the occupiers live at the least cost, will not land pay tithes, afford a fair rent to the landlord, and still leave a sufficiency of necessaries to the cultivator? If this be the case with regard to Ireland, could not the owner of an estate in that country place those who live on it in comfortable circumstances at his pleasure, and still draw a fair revenue from it? Ought he not to do this? Could not the owner of a parish in Ireland purge it, if he chose, of rogues and murderers, and, by converting its inhabitants into a due admixture of decent farmers and husbandry labourers, render it as orderly, and as easy to govern, as an English country village? Ought he not to do it, when the government would render him all the assistance in its power, by providing for any surplus population? If, taking into the calculation the difference of markets, &c. rents were as high in this country as they are in Ireland; and if estates were let to jobbers to be parcelled out in small fragments to the highest bidders, would not our agricultural population be speedily as much distressed as that of Ireland; and would it not be driven to feed on the potatoe? If the answers be in the affirmative, do not they, without seeking for a single additional cause, clearly indicate what produces the distress of Ireland, and what would remove it? For let it ever be remembered, that although this distress is spoken of, as if it covered every class, it is the state of the agricultural population ONLY that bewilders and occupies our statesmen.

Now, when Ministers, Parliament, and the nation at large, are intently occupied in devising means for bettering the condition of the Irish agricultural population, what are the great mass of the Irish landholders-the men who alone can relieve the extreme penury of the greater part of the population-doing? Common sense, speaking only from conjecture, would say-Labouring day and night on their estates-prying into the character and circumstances of their tenants, great and small-expelling those of notoriously bad name and -habits-encouraging the growth of good feelings and conduct-reducing their rents to a fair standard-prepa

ring the means for ridding themselves of middle-men, and enlarging the size of their farms, as rapidly as may be practicable-providing themselves with good stewards at a fixed salary, after the English fashion, to act for them in their occasional absence-labouring to procure from the proper quarters a sufficiency of religious teachers-forming themselves into associations for promoting good systems of cultivation, household management, &c. &c. Alas! alas! if the Irish landholders would only occupy themselves in this manner, we should hear but little of the crimes and misery of Ireland. But these men-we speak of the great mass, and render the highest praise to the individuals who are struggling singly are either doing nothing, or what is much worse. They are constantly absent from their estates, and this of itself constitutes a charge of a heinous nature: they are either silent and inactive, or they are only abusing the government, and ringing the changes on the tithes, the Orangemen, emancipation, and Irish perfection of character. And this is the case with them, when their estates are in the hands of jobbers, who labour to sponge. from the great body of those who live on them, even the bread of life-whose tenants are called upon for rents which will not leave them common necessaries-and whose estates are peopled by rebels, robbers, and murderers! When we contrast what these men do, with what they might do, with what can only be done by themselves at last, and with what it is their sacred duty to God and man to do, we cannot find words to express our sense of their conduct. We turn in scorn from them to our English landholders, and our feelings for the latter become almost adoration.

We shall no doubt be told of debts and mortgages, but what then? We regard it to be proved-indisputably proved-that estates in Ireland will yield a fair rent, without robbing those who live on them of common necessaries; and if this rent will not satisfy the extravagance of the landlord, is this extravagance to justify him in taking the bread which his tenants should eat? Who will answer us?

Although so much has been already said respecting the tithes, still, as the Irish landlords ascribe so much of the