New-York tribune., 1881-08-25

I ognizing the tenants claim to partial pro-
| prietorship in the soil. This object is secured
| through the Intervention of a court empowered
| to fix fair rent for a statutory period and
| through definite regulations for the sale of
| tenancies.
Such are the crucial principles of one of the
| boldest and most complex agrarian measures
of modern times. The question now arises
whether the Act has been crippled or seriously
| maired i'll the recent conflict between the titled
| aristocracy and the representatives of the peo-
pie. On this point our regular London CORE
spondent gives emphatic testimony. He has
| teiegraphed that of the twelve leading questions
at issue between the houses, the Commons
surrendered one and the Lords ten, while the
remaining one was compromised. This does
not look like an abject surrender on the part of
Mr. Gladstone. There were many minor
amendments involving no sacrifice of the essen
tai principles of the bill, and these he accepted
when it was first sent back from the Lords.
There is no evidence, however, that he yielded
his ground on any point of vital Importance.
Among the amendments which he insisted upon
rejecting and which the Lords were ultimately
forced to Withdraw, were those impairing the
security OF tenure granted under n fifteen
years judicial lease, forbidding the court to
recognize the value of tenant-right when rents
were rcadiusted, removing the injunction to the
court to keep in view the interests of landlord
and tenant respectively, deprivng leasehoders
at the expiration of their leases of the benefits
OF the bill, reducing the scale of compensation
for disturbance, authorizing a landlord who
had purchased tenant-right to reimburse him
sell when there was n new tenancy and break
ing the force of the Ulster custom itself
These were matters of critical Importance and
Mr. Gladstone, recognizing the fact that they
would be fatal to the success of his remedial
measure, held his ground and forced the Lords
to give way. The tenacty with which he ad-
hered to his purpose is shown by the fate of
one Of the Duke of Argylls notifications. The
Lords, making an exception of what are known
us Engsh-managod estates, gave the landlord
the right of prohibiting free sale when the i'm
proyements were his own or his predecessors
Mr.. Gladstone accepted the suggestion with the
provso that the improvements must bc main
tanned as well as made The Lords, oubbling
over the phrase, altered it to acquired and in
the main maintained" The Commons finally
threw out the amendment altogether, wisely
concluding that this elastic clause might be
strained to sanction a violation Of the
principle Of free sale.
Let us turn now to the two amendments
which are cited as proofs of the Prcmier's will
ingneSs to abandon his ground for the sake of
legislative harmony. One was Il compromise
and the other concession. The Lords had
authorized the landlord to apply to the court to
regain n holding without first demanding an
increase of rent and receiving the tenants re-
fusal to pay it. The Commons rejected this
proposal, but suggested compromise whereby
the landlord, when he had otherwise failed 10
agree with the tenant as to what is Il fair rent"
would he authorized to ask the court to force a
sale of the tcnant-right. This compromise was
virtually carried out, and the standing of the
landlord before the court somewhat improved
without prejudice to the tenants privileges.
The concession was what is known as Mr.
Parnclls amendment, granting a stay of pro-
ccedngs for sale under writs of execution for
debt or damages pending final decision of the
court in regard to what would be "A fair rent.
| The Lords rejected it outright In this action
the Commons acquicsccd AT first under lhnita-
| tionS and finally unconditonally. The amend
| mcnt was not, however, among the original pro-
poSals OF the Government, and, while comforting
upon the court very great power, was not per-
maps essential To the efficiency OF the measure
The conclusion, therefore, which we reach
after a careful examination of The closing de-
bates on the Land bill, is that Mr. Gladstone has
not made an ignominous surrender of any of
the great principles embodied in his remedial
| scheme for the pacication of Ireland. He had
the proud consciousness that the people were
with him; that they might not understand all
the consequences of the proposed legislation.
| but that they were determined to accept his
! solution OF the qurstion-and his only. If hc
! had chosen to declare war upon the Lords and
had ordered an autumn session, the people
would have supported him. Bat this extreme
! course was not necessary when the Lords stood
ready III return for minor concessions to ahap-
don their ground wherever they were in direct
conflict with the fundamental principles of the
| Act.