New-York tribune., 1881-09-11
LAND LEAGUE AND LAND BILL.
ATTITUDE OF THE IRISH LEADERS.

INGs WITH IRELAND THE LAND BILL~WHAf
THE IEAGUERs REALLY wANT-THE LEAGUE
LIKELY To- KEEP UP SOME PORN OF MisChiE'-
Gus AGITATION AS LONG AS ITS IFhASof'' 10
KEPT FULL OF AMERICAN MONEY
iFRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF TIE iN''' Nh'
loNpoN Aue 24-Mr. Parnell has given out
that there is TO be no obstruction this session.
The pleasure of embarrassing the Government ana
annovinq the House. and keeping members in town
who are eager to get away, has been renounced.
1t Is one dear to the Parnelites that the motive
for abandoning it must have been strong one.
Mr. Parnell has considerably told us what it is.
He and his contederates anxious 10 get to Ire
land as soon possible in order he phrases 10,
to confer with their constituents about the Land
bill. That signifies in plain English-of which
Irish hatred to England other reason,
leads them to use lttle-that they tLlnk more mis-
chief can lie done at this in ireland than in
the House of Commons. The question of the mo-
ment is indeed: What effect will the Land Act
produce in Ireland ? Which again resolves itself
into the questions: What attitude will the Land
League take upS and, What reception will the Irish
people give to the measure 7
AS 10 the action of the Land League, there is little
dOnbt. When Mr.. Parnell says he is going tC
"confer" with bis constituents. every body knows
what he means. He is going to urge them to per-
severe in their hostility to the Government and to
English rule He said much last month, before
the Act had been passed. The Land question with
him is only secondary question-Only a means to
a much larger end. He would not have joined tho
Land League If he had not that Irish hatred
to England could he worked upon at the time more
efficiently by agrarian agitation than by any other
means. His attitude to the Land Act long
doubtful He gave any real support to the
Government. AT the second reading Of the bill, he
and all the Irishmen he could carry with him
walked out of the House. The measure goes further
than he anybody expected 1t to go. Its conces-
sions to the demands of the tenants, its exactons
from the landlords, admittedly i'll derogation of
existing legal rights, in violation of existing con-
tracts. and in direct contradiction to che acknowl
edged principles of economy which bear sway
everywhere but in Ireland. The Government alien
ated some of their strongest supporters by propOs-
ing it, and strained the loyalty of largo section of
their party in carrying it, Whether the Liberal
party as a whole either desired understood the
nature of the measure which is bestowed upon Ire
land in their name may be doubted. | never saw
any evidence that the enthusiasm which Anglo Irish
advocates of the bill alleged in behalf of it was
anything more than an eni husiasm in behalf of Mr..
Gladstone, and generous willingness to support
with all the authority of the constituencies bill
which he had pronounced necessary and wise. In
the House of Commons itself the provisions of the
Act were, it is admitted, but very imperiectly
derstood by the great body of Liberals. who day
after day and week after week went into the Gov
ernment lobby III support of the Government pro-
pOsals during the innumerable divisions which took
place in Committee. 1t the common taunt of
Conservative speakers and the Conservative press
that vastly the most important
known for q quarter of a century, the bulk of the
Liberals had surrendered their conscences into the
Prime Minister'S keeping. and there was only too
much truth in the taunt
For the measure, and for the existence of the
extraordinary circumstances in which it was
passed, there was we were repeatedly told, one
justification, and one only The bill, with all its
complexty, with all it's sweeping changes with its
whole revolutionary scheme for the redistribution of
property in Irish land, an act of necessity.
There were many who contended that 1t act
of Justice. and many more who more plausibly
maintained that many of its provisions were cacu-
lated TO do justice as between Irish landlord and
Irish tenant. But on the whole it may be said that
the motive which underlay The decision the Gov
ernment in proposing the bill, and of the majority
who supported it, political and not agrarian.
1t conviction that the real grievance of the
Irish had to do with the land a sense that peace
and loyalty could only be secured in Ireland if at
all, by legislation which should that
grievance; and a conviction that the savage dis
content of the Irish with English rule could thus
only if at ALL be appcased That is perfectly
iustfable and statesmanlike view Of a difficult
problem, 1t takes into account, whether rightly
not is another question, the nature of the Ish pco
pie There those who think that the Govern
ment are dealing with the Irish less as reasonable
than fractions children. They look upon
the Land Bill q very costly and dangerous sort
Of toy, hut consider that if nothing else would
satisfy the endnts te,rbles of the British nursery
the experiment of giving it had to be tried. The
only other alternative was the rod; and Solomon's
maxim is just out of fashion with the radical
ism which is so powerful among English Liberals
and which is vocal out of all proportion to its
power.
The Land Bill, in short, as we have heard over
and over again from the Ministerial bench, was to
be " a message of peace " to Ireland. message of
peace is good thing and implies good intentions
the part of those who offer it. It's practical
value, which is, in this case its political value
depends something very different from mere
good intentions IL depends the accuracy OF the
sendeTs estimate of the character of those TO whom
the message is sent, and of the circumstances in
which 1T Is sent If the Land League really repre-
sents the people of Ireland and if the programme
of the League really represents the wishes of ITS
leaders, and if the Land Act corresponds to the pro-
gramme and purpose of the League, then it might
be, in the meant by its author, a message of
peace. Mr.. Gladstone might fairly hope that the
result and effect of the immense labors and of the
sacrifices he has imposed himself, and of the
unselhsh devotion of his party, would be the peace
he has strven to establish. But who can speak
with confidence about any of these three Ifs y
which are, perhaps not less vital to the ques-
tion than the three Fs"f
1t is too soon, of course to attempt to define the
future relations of the League aud the Irish
people. That and the question put at the begin
ming of this letter to the reception the Irish as
nation would give to the Land Act be left for
time to determine But about the Land League
shere is unhappily. not much room for doubt. If