The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-25 00:00:00

THE IRISH LAND BILL.

The House then went into committee on this bill.
Earl GRANVILLE laid on the table an amendment to
clause 3, which had been drawn up to meet the case of a
transfer of tenantcy without the consent of the landlord
in lieu of that moved by the Duke of Richmond last night.
The noble duke thought his amendment the best to meet
the case, and Earl Grey concurred in that opinion.—Vis-
count Halifax said. Ireland was at present in an excep-
tional state, and that it was far better to make compen-
sation than be shot ; thereupon the Marquis of Salisbury
made some very severe comments on the remark, and
said they would now be able to understand the ground on
which the bill was founded. Wherever the Ulster custom
was in favour of the tenant it was adopted, but
where it referred to the landlord it was altogether
disregarded. The present case was a clear departure
from the custom, as by it the landlord always had a veto
in the case of a transfer of tenantcy. Earl Granville de-
fended the amendment. He said it applied only to exist-
ing tenantcies, and left the power with respect to future
contracts perfectly free.—The committee then diyided on
the amendment of the Duke of Richmond, which was to
the effect that if a tenant assigned his holding without
the consent of the landlord the latter should not be oalled
upon to compensate him unless he was evicted. The
numbers were :
Contents
Not contents
The amendment of the Duke of Richmond was therefore
carried in preference to that of Earl Granville.—The
Duke of Richmond then moved a further amendment to
the clause, with a view of omitting the qualification enab-
ling tenants holding 25 acres of land to sublet portions of
the holding not exceeding half an acre for colleges or gardens.
—Earl Granville and the Duke of Argyle both defended
the portion of the clause objected to by the noble duke, on
the ground that if the clause was passed without the
security which had been objected to the worst results
would follow.—Lord O'Hagan was of the same opinion,
but Lord Cairns and the Earl of Clancarty supported the
proposed amendment.—Lord Athlumney explained the
present state of the law. He said the condition of the
Irish labourer was now a scandal and a disgrace, and ex-
pressed a hope that as so much was proposed to be done
for the tenants something should be done very speedily by

. 116

the Government to better the condition of the labourer.—
A long discussion followed, which was terminated by
Earl Granville remarking that their lordships had, up to
that time, been engaged three hours on the bill, and they
had only got through six lines of it.—The House divided,
when there appeared—

For the amendment ... ... 138
Against it .. ... 89
The amendment was carried, the Government being in a
minority of 49.—The Duke of Richmond then moved
an amendment to reduce the term from thirty-
one to twenty-one years as the length of lease
to exonerate landlords from paying compensation.—
Earl Granville strongly opposed the alteration.—
The Earl of Malmesbury, whilst condemning the excep-
tional legislation as set forth in the vote, supported the
emendment. Lord Cairns also spoke in favour of the
proposed alteration, but Lord Monck said he thought 31
years was a fair and equitable agricultural lease, and re-
ferring to the calm and conciliatory manner in which the
Duke of Richmond carried on his opposition, said he did
not wish to disturb the harmony, but he could not help
saying that it was like the leathern glove that covered
the iron hand. The Lord Chancellor strongly condemned
the constant nibbling that had been going on with respect
to the bill. First, he said, they began by lowering
the scale of compensation, and now they wished
to cut down the length of lease. He thought it
unreasonable legislation for Ireland, and a mockery to say
they were giving that country the best law possible.—Lord
Powerscourt, amidst great laughter, said the only tenants
who in his experience made no improvement at all were
those who had a3l years' lease. Those tenants who did
effect improvements were those who held simply from year
to year. Their lordships divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... ... 140
Against ... 111

Majority ... ... 29
The Marquis of SALISBURY then moved an amendment
with the view of reducing the annual value of rateable
property, held from year to year and entitling the tenant
to compensation for disturbance for £lOO to £so.—Earl
de Grey and Ripon characterised the amendment as an
unnecessary paring down of the clause, and that it would
have an operation far beyond the cause it was intended to
effect, creating an amount of dissatisfaction that would
seriously impair that which might otherwise be expected
to be the effect of the measure. -'-The Earl of
of Bessborough thought of all the amendments that had
been made in the bill that now proposed by the noble
marquis would prove by far the most fatal and injurious to
the measure.—Lord Greville also expressed his belief that
this last amendment would render the bill worse than use-
less.—The Duke of Richmond said he was in the un-
pleasant position of not being able to vote for the pro-
posal of the noble marquis (Salisbury). The declaration
of the noble duke seemed to create some surprise.—The
Marquis of Salisbury said he felt so strong on the point
that if he went out alone he should divide the House upon
it. On a division there appeared—

For the amendment ... ... 119
Against ... ... 101
The amendment was therefore carried by a majority of
18, notwithstanding the leader of the Opposition voted
with the Government.—Some other verbal amendments
having been made to clause 3 were then agreed to, and their
lordships adjourned at twenty minutes past one.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
THE EDUCATION BILL.
The debate on the amendment to the Education Bill
proposed by Mr. Richard, was resumed by Mr. Mun
della, the member for Sheffield. The benches were
tolerably well filled, and the House seemed prepared to
debate the subject very warmly.
Mr. MIINDELLA was decidedly of opinion that the
Bill as it now stood was much more acceptable
than when introduced in its original form. He strongly
advocated the principle of compulsion in the matter of
education. He referred at some length to the state of
education abroad, and pointed out the frightful amount of
mental destitution in this country. He disapproved of
religious teaching being prohibited in the schools. It
was their object to infuse into the people a better
moral tone ; and this could only be done by religious
teaching. It was competent to have religious instruction
without sectarianism. He urged the House not to lose
for a trifling difference such an opportunity of inaugu-
rating a grand system of national education.
Mr. W. H. SMITH assured the House that, having
made inquiries among the working class portion of his
constituents, they were generally in favour of re-
ligious teaching, and entertained the belief that a system
of purely secular education would not be worthy the
name of education. He thought that the increased pay-
ment for results by the Privy Council was a great boon
both to the ratepayers and to those who wished to main-
tain voluntary schools. The hon. gentleman suggested an
extension of the area of the School Boards, and said that
hon. members on that side of the House were prepared to
make every concession which did not involve the sacrifice
of a vital principle.
An amusing incident occurred as the member for West-
minster resumed his seat. Mr. Horsman and Mr.
Walter rose together to address the House, and
the Speaker selected the latter, who remained
standing. Mr. Horsman seemed undecided, and
reseated himself, but rose again immediately. There
were cries of "Horsman !" but the hon. gentleman
seemed confused, and turning to the Speaker left the
House, as was imagined, in high dudgeon. Mr. Walter
had just commenced to speak when the representative of
Liskeard re-entered, bearing a glass of water, which he
offered to Mr. Walter. The House indulged in con-
siderable laughter, and the hon. gentleman was greeted
with cheers.
Mr. WALTER supported the Government Bill, and ex-
pressed his belief that the religious difficulty was more
, imaginary than real. The moderate Churchmen and the
moderate Nonconformists were quite prepared to act toga-
' ther, and he believed that the great majority of the
House would adopt a middle course.

Mr. HORSMAN analysed the speeches which had been made
by several of the prominent speakers, and alluding to the atti-
tude of the Conservative party said they lamented the intro-
duction of the bill, yet they supported it. They were
wise in their day and generation, he remarked. He under
stood the denominational principle, which was advocated
on the other side, which meant the paying by the State of
all religions. He understood the unsectarian and national
principle advocated by his honourable friend the
member for Merthyr Tydvil, that the State
should pay no religion. But he did not under-
stand the combination of two opposite, irreconcilable,
and antagonistic principles which had been brought toge-
ther to construct a great, ingenious educational project,
ind ,finite nevertheless, and unworkable. The han, gentle-
man asked what was the educational difficulty. It was,
he said, the rivalry of sects ; it was the contention of
creeds ; and, above all, it was a legacy of the old bitter war
of bad times between the proscribed dissenters and the State
church which had handed down feelings which impelled
their descendants and representatives to watch with
jealousy and to resist as unjust anything that ever had
the appearance of giving to that favoured Church that
which was at variance with the principlas of religious
equality. He characterised the conscience clause as a
delusion. It had been said that it was a monstrous
thing that the Bible should be excluded from schools,
but it was more monstrous that it should be the signal for
flight, that its earliest reading should be associated by
one half the scholars with long tasks and less play, and
by the other half that it should be regarded as a danger-
ous and forbidden book.
Mr. GLADSTONE, shortly after five o'clock, rose to ad-
dress the House, and ventured to say that he did not
misinterpret the opinion of the House when he said it was
desirable to close the debate. In the course of the dis-
cussion it had been said that the bill had ceased
to be regarded as a measure of national education.
He thought these critics gave by far too
limited an interpretation to that phrase, for they
were unwilling to admit that any education could be
worthy of the name of national unless the whole
machinery by which it was carried on and administered
should be machinery created by the State, worked through
the medium of public or local taxes. The Government
were not able to admit that the significance of the
word national education should be to restrict it.
The object of the measure was to bring home if they could
the blessings of an elementary education to every child in
the country, and to do that with all the favour that could
properly be bestowed by the action of the State upon
religious training, and to do it at the same time in every
case to protect the rights of conscience. He contended
that if the measure could be passed through
Parliament they would attain their objects by
making use of the existing and voluntary machinery.
The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to notice the
remarks that had been addressed to the House by the
several speakers, and said that it appeared to him that
they all substantially agreed to the proposal that
had been adopted by the Government, and which excluded
formularies in the public-rated schools. He then expressed
a hope that the House would not adopt any narrow view*
on the matter, but that they would arrive at an ar-
rangement compatible with the general equilibrium of
moral force and social instruction throughout the length
and breadth of the kingdom. He then proceeded to defend
the amendment that had been accepted by the government,
and said in his firm belief and opinion they had taken a
guarantee against any violation of conscience from narrow
or sectarian views.

The right hon. gentleman spoke for an hour and
quarter. He was very eloquent, and was repeatedly
applauded. The House was filled in every part, and the
greatest possible interest was shewn in the Premier's
address. At twenty minutes to seven a division was
taken, and the amendment rejected by a majority of 421
to 60. The result was announced amid much cheering.
The House went into committee, but immediately resumed,
and the sitting was suspended.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

The House reassembled at nine o'clock, at which hour
there were not more than a dozen members present. Mr.
George Gregory, who admitted the unattractiveness of
his subject, proceeded as soon as the Speaker had taken
the chair to call attention to the appellate jurisdiction in
the Court of Chancery. Mr. Gregory was the only
Conservative in the House, and he seemed to under-
stand his peculiar situation. At eleven minutes past nine
the attention of the Speaker was directed to the state of
the House, and he proceeded to count. Mr. Candlish
was the only member who entered in the interval allowed
for hon. gentlemen to come from the lobby, and there not
being the requisite number (40) to constitute a House, an
adjournment took place.