tenant with inflexible rigour,—to resume possession of his holding,—probably much deteriorated by necessitous husbandry,—and either to confiscate the paid-up portion of the purchase-money, which would be considered a gross injustice by the person evicted, or to return it to him, which would be an equally sensible loss to the Exchequer. But, supposing the creation of these small proprietorships happily effected, is it so certain that the general condition of the country would be improved? What guarantee have we against these several infinitesimal estates acquiring the character of the already existing perpetuities?[1] It is the fashion to argue that the relation of landlord and tenant, as it exists in England, cannot be comprehended by the genius of the Irish people. But it is the only relation the Irish peasant does (at least so long as he remains in Ireland) thoroughly appreciate. The labourer's dream is to become a tenant; the tenant's greatest ambition is to enjoy the dignity of a landlord.[2] What he cannot
- ↑ Mr. Mill, with his usual sagacity, has detected the difficulties which might arise out of the indiscriminate conversion of the present tenantry into peasant-proprietors.
"A large proportion also of the present holdings are probably still too small to try the proprietary system under the greatest advantages; nor are the tenants always the persons one would desire to select as the first occupants of peasant-properties."—Mill's Polit. Econ. p. 411.
- ↑ "There is a very great desire with nearly all of them to become landlords, and sublet the land."—Judge Longfield's Evidence, Q. 524.
