GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



339 



known as the Ulster tenant-right over the 

 whole of Ireland, was introduced without the 

 concurrence of the Government. The Gov- 

 ernment deprecated the pressing of this meas- 

 ure as premature and calculated to forestall 

 its action, but declined, in the discussion upon 

 the subject, to make any pledge as to the 

 character of the land act which it intended 

 to bring in at the next session. Mr. Parnell 

 declined to support the bill, because he did not 

 consider it sufficient for a final settlement, and 

 also thought that the Government ought to be 

 allowed adequate time to deal with the ques- 

 tion involved. This bill was lost on the first 

 division. In the discussion of the Compensa- 

 tion for Disturbance Bill, July 6th, Mr. Glad- 

 stone admitted the exceptional nature of the 

 measure, but insisted that it was demanded by 

 exceptional circumstances. It was intended to 

 maintain, not to invade, the rights of property, 

 and to enable the state with a clear conscience 

 to use its power to enforce the provisions of 

 the law. The insinuation that it was intended 

 to conciliate the partisans of Home Rule was 

 absurd on its face. The course which the House 

 was asked to adopt in constituting a new ex- 

 ception to the land act was justified because 

 the necessity was strong, the situation in some 

 parts of Ireland being equivalent to civil war ; 

 because the remedy was carefully adapted and 

 limited to the necessity ; and because effectual 

 precautions had been taken against the House 

 being betrayed unawares into the establishment 

 of a dangerous precedent. On the other side, 

 the bill was declared to be a dangerous measure 

 of confiscation. One speaker asserted that it 

 would ruin hundreds of landlords, break up 

 many of their homes, and reduce their families 

 to suffering, without rendering their tenantry 

 more happy or contented. Lord Hartington 

 disavowed all desire to support exceptional 

 legislation without giving the case of the land- 

 lords full investigation. Nothing, therefore, 

 would have induced him to approve of this 

 measure but the strong conviction which was 

 entertained by the Irish Government, and those 

 responsible for the peace of Ireland, that some- 

 thing of the sort was absolutely necessary. 

 Mr. Forster said the Government did not intend 

 to say that the peace of Ireland could not be 

 preserved without this bill, but had introduced 

 it because the Ministers wished to be able to 

 enforce the law with a good conscience, and 

 they believed that, if an amendment of this 

 character were not provided, they would have 

 to enforce a law that was not altogether just. 

 The bill was passed to its second reading by a 

 vote of 295 to 217", and was finally passed July 

 27th and carried to the House of Lords, where 

 its second reading was moved by Lord Gran- 

 ville, August 3d. Lord Granville supported the 

 measure chiefly on account of the increasing 

 number of evictions. He urged that if the 

 House of Lords had not changed the land act 

 of 1870 from the form in which it passed the 

 House of Commons, by striking out the clauses 



enabling the judge, on the eviction of a tenant 

 for non-payment of rent, to discuss how far 

 his default had been occasioned by the rent 

 being excessive, no such bill would have been 

 necessary. Lord Grey protested that, even 

 though distress existed, the landlord ought not 

 to be deprived by the law of the means of en- 

 forcing the payment of rent, as would sub- 

 stantially be done if the power of eviction were 

 suspended ; denied that the landlords had been 

 harsh, or the tenants had done their best to pay 

 their rents ; and attributed the increase of evic- 

 tions to the alarm engendered by the inflam- 

 matory speeches of the land agitators. Lord 

 Salisbury depicted land agitation in Ireland as 

 like a wild beast, which one could no more 

 satisfy by concession than he could keep off a 

 tiger by giving it his hand. Lord Cairns as- 

 serted that the -bill was drawn up with an in- 

 genuity which would make inevitable a colli- 

 sion in every case between landlord and tenant; 

 for the tenants, unless they were different from 

 the rest of mankind, would be impelled to make 

 the claim for compensation in every case. The 

 bill, he said, offered the tenant an easy way of 

 getting a considerable sum of money without 

 paying his rent, and would allow him to retain 

 his land while he was making his claim. While 

 he opposed this bill, he was nevertheless will- 

 ing to consider a measure for Irish emigration, 

 or one for the extension of tenant-right. Lord 

 Beaconsfield declared that the bill was a pre- 

 lude to the introduction of a similar measure 

 with reference to English land, and urged its 

 rejection as an act "for which the country 

 would be grateful, and posterity would be 

 proud." The bill was refused a second read- 

 ing, and was consequently rejected by a vote 

 of 282 to 51. The total vote, 333, was the 

 largest that had been taken in the House of 

 Lords for several years. The bill for the relief 

 of distress was passed in the House of Com- 

 mons, July 21st, and having been approved by 

 the House of Lords, received the royal assent 

 August 2d. 



The Government was again questioned in 

 the House of Commons concerning its inten- 

 tions with respect to Ireland, August 6th. Mr. 

 Forster replied that, while it deeply regretted 

 the decision of the House of Lords, the Gov- 

 ernment did not propose to introduce another 

 bill during the present session. He hoped that 

 no need would arise for the employment of the 

 military for any purpose in Ireland, but at the 

 same time it was his duty to state that the Gov- 

 ernment would protect the officers of the courts 

 of law in the discharge of their duties, while it 

 would also fulfill its duty with the utmost con- 

 sideration for the sufferings of the poor tenants. 

 On the 23d of August Mr. Forster stated that 

 the Government did not think it would be 

 necessary to ask before the prorogation of 

 Parliament for additional powers for the pres- 

 ervation of peace and the better security of 

 life and property. There was certainly much 

 cause for anxiety in the condition of parts of 



