The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-31 00:00:00

THE IRISH LAND BILL.

On the order for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. HARDY, who said he did not oppose the third reading
commented upon the principles of the bill. It was in the
hope that in the Upper House the measure would bethis
proved that he did not offer any resistance to it at im-
stage.
- -

Mr. MAGUIRE remarked that the House had, in refer-
ence to the Land Bill, arrived at a most important stage,
and he was afraid the observations of the hon. gentleman
shadowed forth an amount of opposition elsewhere which

might prove fatal to the object which they
had in view, namely, to bring about a better
state of things in Ireland by a measure which would
be of advantage to the people and a credit to any Admin-
istration, Whig or Tory, that should have the responsi-
bility of governing that country. Whilst the bill did not
go to the extent that might be wished, yet, humanly
speaking, it was impossible, under the circumstances, for
the Government to have carried a more advanced measure.
If the Bill were sent back to that House in an
imperfect shape, or in a form which they would feel bound
to reject, there would be as the natural result a fierce,
violent agitation in Ireland, and he dare not say where or
how it would end. It had been said that the bill
would give a stimulus to emigration, but he contended
that it would have an opposite effect. As soon as
a person across the Atlantic found that he could have
property security in his holding in Ireland he would begin
to think about coming home. He bore testimony to the
cordial and generous spirit evinced on the part of the
English and Scotch members towards Ireland, and
although he admitted that the bill was not all that it
might have been, he believed that the Irish would accept
it with pleasure, and he for one should try to reconcile his
countrymen to it.
Sir FREDERIC HEYGATE said the boon which the bill con-
ferred upon the Irish was enormous. In fact the Govern-
ment had given the tenants more than they had a
right to expect. He regretted to say that
not one proposal of importance had been
conceded by the Government on his side of the House.
Referring to the Fenian attack on Canada he said it was
ridiculous to suppose that legislation of the character now
proposed would make them peaceful and loyal subjects.
The bill, he went on to say, had done nothing for the
labourers, whatever it might have done for the tenants.
Mr. BRYAN thought the bill had not come out of the
Committee much improved, so far as his views were con-
cerned. He considered that a clause might have been
inserted in the bill by the Government, which would
benefit the labourers.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that in the belief of the Govern-
ment, the alterations which had been indicated by the
member for the University of Oxford would deprive the
bill of all its force and value. Mr. Gladstone at some
length replied to the observations which had been made
during the discussion. He said that for generations, for
centuries, that House had been busy legislating in favour
of the Irish landlord, and what was the result ? What
-vists his position in regard to security of life, in regard to
security of property, and with regard to the price which
his estate fetched in the market ? And when the Govern-
ment legislated for the purpose of giving the tenant
security in the prosecution of his industry they
firmly believed that it was the best and surest way
of legislating for the interests of the landlord. In framing
the bill they deliberately and advisedly declined to meet
the popular demands in Ireland. There was a demand
widely spread that the Ulster custom should
be recognised as the universal law of Ireland.
To this demand the Government declined to ac-
cede, and they had declined to admit into the bill
the recognition of any custom out of Ulster as
Ulster custom, unless under the most stringent terms,
namely, where it was found to present all the' essential
characteristics of that custom. The other great and
general demand was the demand for valuation of rents
and fixity of tenure. There were those, indeed, who said
that the valuation of rents was involved in the bill as it
stood. Where the Ulster custom prevailed he did not deny
that might be true up to a certain point, but that did not
stand upon any ground of conventional legislation, but upon
the recognition of rights already existing. The principle
of the third clause which established damages for
eviction was entirely different from the principle of
valuation of rents. It placed a burden upon the
landlord if he evicted and injured his tenant with-
out cause, but that burden was limited. Mr. Glad-
stone then referred to the unprecedented labour
bestowed upon the bill, and expressed his opinion that the
bill, if it passed into law, would come into operation with-
out a shock to any interest in Ireland. He knew nothing
in the bill which would make it incumbent upon any man,
landlord or tenant, to do anything in the way of exercising
legal power after it should become law. He hoped
that the tenant would prosecute his industry with a
greater sense of confidence, and that the landlord would
find the benefit of that augmented industry in the in-
creased value of his property ; and that the labourer, for
whom it seemed to have been supposed the Government
ought to have invented some nostrum, would receive
benefit in the augmented demand for the commodity in
which he dealt, namely, the muscle of his arms.
Capt. ARCHDALL threatened to divide the House on the
question of the third reading of the bill.
Sir JOHN GRAY could not accept the bill as finally set-
tling the Irish land question. He thought it would abso-
lutely remove the cruelty of eviction in Ireland.
Mr. DOWNING thought the bill would put an end to
capricious eviction in Ireland.
Colonel BARTTELOT appealed to Captain Archdall not
to divide the House on the question. After some further
discussion, the bill was read a third dine, amid loud
cheering. The House, which had up to this juncture been
full, became nearly empty.
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
A long and uninteresting discussion took place on the
second reading of this bill. In reply to the observations
made by the several speakers,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, in reference to
the abolition of the hawkers' license, that when the House
had shown that the hawkers were guilty of many offences
they had made out a good case for strong police regula-
tions, but not for taxation. A bill would be introduced
by which hawkers would have to obtain a license. The
license should be annual, and the holder should forfeit
it on being proved guilty of a certain class of offences.
The bill was read a second time.

STAMP DUTIES BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
THE EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS FROM THE
HOUSE.

Mr. HENLEY called the attention of the House to the
practice of ordering strangers to withdraw and the effect
thereof. He referred to the recent exclusion of the
strangers and the reporters from the House. He argued
that on all such matters the constituencies had a right to
know the opinions of their representatives, and he could
not see any reason why any subject could not be discussed
in that House in a manner which should.not shock the
most sensitive.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that notwithstanding the peculiar
nature of the subject referred to it was a lesser evil that
it should be dismissed in public than that their con-
stituencies and the public at large should remain igno-
; rant of the opinion expressed in the House. He was not
prepared, however, to offer any (proposal, and was bound