GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



365 



cote. Still the contest was keenly carried on 

 upon the details, and on some motions the min- 

 isterial majority was considerably decreased by 

 the defection of the Whigs. Mr. Heneage's 

 amendment exempting "English-managed " es- 

 tates, that is, those which are maintained and 

 improved by the landlords, from the free-sale 

 clause, was defeated with a majority of 25, only 

 by the accession of the whole Home Rule vote. 

 Gladstone avoided a contest of doubtful issue 

 on the fair-rent clause by striking out the pre- 

 scriptions regarding the tenant's interest, and 

 leaving it to the discretion of the court. Sim- 

 ilar discretion had already been allowed with 

 regard to " reasonable objections " a landlord 

 might have to the purchaser of a tenant-right. 

 When the fair-rent clause was reached, the Gov- 

 ernment inserted, at the suggestion of Charles 

 Russel, the mover of the last-mentioned alter- 

 ation, the instruction that the court should 

 "have regard to the landlord's and tenant's 

 interests respectively," an addition which was 

 objected to by the Conservatives, but declared 

 by Mr. Gladstone to have but slight practical 

 effect. The provision for canceling leases made 

 since 1870 under undue pressure was added in 

 committee. The bill was discussed in com- 

 mittee from May 26th to July 22d. On June 

 28th Gladstone obtained a vote giving it pre- 

 cedence, but, knowing that the Conservatives 

 would not agree to it, did not venture to ask 

 for a daclaration of urgency. The emigration 

 clause was bitterly resisted by the Irish party, 

 who resorted to obstructive tactics, but de- 

 sisted when the Government prepared for all- 

 night sittings. The sum set aside for this 

 purpose was, however, limited to 200,000 in 

 deference to their wishes. When the com- 

 position of the Land Commission was made 

 known (Sergeant O'Hagan, Judicial Commis- 

 sioner, with the grade of a judge, with Mr. 

 Litton, former member of Parliament, and Mr. 

 Vernon, a practical manager of land, as his 

 colleagues), the Conservatives objected to the 

 nominations on account of their well-known 

 views on tenant-rights, while the Land League 

 denounced them in unsparing terms. Sir Wal- 

 ter Barttelot's proposal that the commission 

 should purchase estates affected by the statu- 

 tory conditions, at the demand of the owners, 

 was rejected by a majority of 63. Lord Ed- 

 mond Fitzmaurice proposed the limitation of 

 the fair-rent clause to holdings valued at less 

 than 100, which was defeated by 36 major- 

 ity. At the very close of the discussion of the 

 amendments, July 28th, the Government ac- 

 cepted a suggestion of Mr. Parnell that the 

 power of selling a tenant's interest shall bo 

 suspended until any application he may make 

 to have a judicial rent fixed is determined. The 

 Conservatives resolved not to oppose the third 

 reading on the 29th ; but Lord Randolph 

 Churchill was not amenable to discipline and 

 provoked a debate, in which Mr. Gibson for 

 the Tories delivered a final protest against the 

 principles of the measure, and Mr. Healy for 



the Irish party declared that its real authors 

 were languishing in jail. It was carried by a 

 vote of 220 to 14, only a few extreme Conserv- 

 atives voting. 



The attitude which Lord Salisbury and the 

 Conservative majority in the House of Lords 

 would take in respect to the land bill was a 

 subject of anxious doubt. Great relief was felt 

 when the Marquis of Salisbury announced that, 

 although he condemned the bill in its princi- 

 ples and in its details, it was expedient, in view 

 of the state of affairs brought about in Ireland 

 by the promise of this measure, to accept its 

 main provisions, throwing the responsibility 

 for it upon the Government, reserving only the 

 right to remedy the most glaringly unjust and 

 unnecessary of its consequences. The Duke of 

 Argyll carried an amendment excepting " Eng- 

 lish-managed " holdings, which was the prin- 

 cipal alteration made in the Upper House ac- 

 cepted by the Commons, the condition being 

 added that improvements should be not only 

 made but maintained by the landlord. The 

 other amendments, one giving the landlord 

 equal access to the court, and others of minor 

 importance, were thrown out. When the bill 

 was returned to the Lords, Salisbury declared 

 that the Government would have to appeal to 

 the country to decide between them and the 

 constitutional majority of the peers. The coun- 

 try was thrown into a fever of excitement by 

 this announcement. The recurrent threat of 

 the abolition of the House of Peers if they 

 oppose the people's will was murmured omi- 

 nously. The House of Commons took up the 

 Lords' revised amendments August 15th. The 

 Prime Minister excited the wrath and scorn of 

 the Irish party and of many English Radicals 

 by announcing that the amendments would be 

 considered on their merits, and every effort 

 made to compromise the dispute. Several im- 

 portant points were conceded. Among these 

 were the right of the landlord to get a fair rent 

 fixed by the court, if the tenant fails to agree, 

 without raising the rent at his own peril ; the 

 understanding that large payments for tenant- 

 right are not to justify the reduction of rent; 

 and the abandonment of Mr. Parnell's " sus- 

 pension of proceedings " clause. With the bill 

 as thus amended Lord Salisbury advised the 

 House of Lords to agree, and in this form the 

 land law (Ireland) act became a law. 



Parliament was prorogued on August 27th. 



The case of Charles Bradlaugh, member- 

 elect for Northampton, furnished another un- 

 pleasant proof of defective working of Parlia- 

 ment and incompatibility between its arrange- 

 ments and the requirements of the new British 

 electorate. Mr. Bradlaugh was pledged to test 

 the right of non-believers to sit in the House of 

 Commons. He first insisted on his right to 

 make an affirmation, as Jews, Quakers, etc., 

 are allowed to do by statute. On the House's 

 declining to receive his affirmation, he declared 

 his willingness to take the formal oath. The 

 question of his right to do so was referred to a 



