n the first and second row of figures. When I saw
the curiously-selected years, I said, why 1861, 1877, and 1891? I knew
there was some thimble-rigging. I looked at the twenty-eighth annual
report of her Majesty's Commissioners, that for 1885, the latest I
have, and behold, the year 1877 had an asterisk! It was the only
starred number on the page. It referred to a foot-note, and that
foot-note read as follows:--

"'_The large difference as compared with prior years is due to the
value of farmhouses having been previously included under the head of
messuages._'

"The land up to '77 was called land, and the farm buildings were
called messuages. But in '77 they began to reckon the buildings as
land, shifting an amount from one column of figures to another. A mere
matter of book-keeping. Mr. Logan writes to the papers for an
explanation which is given in a footnote. He carries his point, for
hundreds of people will follow his figures. Give a lie twenty-four
hours' start and you can never overtake it. Thrice is he armed who
hath his quarrel just, But four times he who gets his blow in fust. I
suppose the Gladstonians claim that the Land Commission reduced rents
by 25 to 30 per cent. But here Mr. Logan is proving that the landlords
are drawing more money than ever! They wish they could believe it.
Valuation is a queer thing. It fluctuates in the most unaccountable
way. What an increase shows is the prosperity of the tenant who is
putting up buildings and making other improvements. Mr. Logan's third
figures show a further increase. Look at the figures in the authorised
Report, not for '77 and '91, but between the two. What do you see
there?"

I looked, and this is what I saw:--

1880 L9,980,543
1881 L9,980,650
1882 L9,980,215
1883 L9,981,156
1884 L9,982,072
1885 L9,982,031
1886 L9,954,535

So that Mr. Logan might have shown from these figures that during the
No-Rent Campaign the landlords were enjoying an untold period of
prosperity, for his chosen year, 1891, shows a _decrease_ as compared
with any one of the seven years above-mentioned. The truth is that the
figures prove nothing in support of Mr. Logan's case, which is based
on fallacy and suppression of material facts. His comparison of 1861
with 1877, without reference to the explanatory footnote, is of itself
sufficient to shoulder him out of court, and stam