New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-04-14


Tho opnonents of the Land bill seem 10 be
At their wits ends to find flaws in it. The Con
seryatiyes have not ae&rcd upon any line Of
action in respect to IT, and ~ their leader IN the
Commons has committed himself IN advance to
the main ideas embodied in the BILL their opposi-
ton To the measure will not he likely to prove
effective. The Irish members scarcely know
how or where to begin the attack. They find
that the fundamental principles for which they
have been contending have been recognized In
theory. and M the same time 80 ingcmouSly
re,-llated in practice as to protect landlords
without dcpriving tenants OF any reasonable
nrivneces The reforms which they have ad-
vocated in n general way without reducing them
n definite form are practically worked ont by the
Liberal Ministry. Mr.. Mccarthy for example,
in discussing the land question in an American
review. admits that what Ireland wants Is
LEGISLATION which will give security Of tenure
To every occupant who pays his rent, and ut
the same time begin the foundation of a peas
ant proprietary in the hope that in iis nat
ural growth and development it may over
spread the land He cannot consistently ask
for more radical application Of the principles
commonly known rs tho "1hrce Fs' than
larger grants Of public money than are sane
toned by the Liberal Ministry. The general
Iines Of the remedial legislation proposed by
Mr.. Gladstone must Ice followed 10y the most
intelligent leaders of the Land League. They
cannot oppose the bill on broad grounds They
can only attack it in q spirit of captious
criticism.
Mr. Pamell has already found it necessary
| 70 resort to quibblng. At Cork he expressed
a vague preference for n more radical measure
involving the compulsory expulsion of bad
| landlords As the tenants have been taught
by the agitators to believe that all the present
landlords are dad" and that land-owning it.
self under the present system is crime, thi'
programme would simply imply the abolition
of landlordism A more impracticable and un-
lust scheme can scarcely be imagined. As fol
the Land bill, Mr. Parnell thought it wa
Z" full of doubtful points and pitfalls" The
emigration bOuntcs he denounced ~ devic,
for clearing out the class of small tenants, who
have contributed 80 much to the success Of ia,
Land League and in the next breath he can
toned tenants against accepting any bill tina
did not largely reduce rents. Yet, il
promoting artifcially the movement o
tbo surplus population, the Liberal Min
istrv are following the advice of man,
Of the most sincere friends of IRELAND
rs well "A the obvious teachings of ecOnomi
law aud one Of the most important feature
Of the new Act is that which enables the lOca
courts 20 decide in every contested case wha
a n fair rent In his most recent utter
ances Mr.. Parnell admits that the Ministr.
had carried into effect the programme of TIN
League, but complains that many proyi
sions of the bill are illusory and the mean
devised utterly inadequate. These charges ar
made with bad grace by n leader who In
never mastered the details of land reform. Ii
this respect Mr.. Parnell has been unlike th
great agitators of Irish history, Flood Grattal
and O'Connell Whereas they proposed def
mite reforms and never neglected to adjus
means to ends, he has never ceased 10 beat th
air, massing the sentiment of the country to
eether for indefinite purposes.
These feeble attacks serve to prove that Co
Land bill is n well-digested measure whic
will pass the Commons by round majority
In our special cable dispatch the prediction In
been made that 80 out of 103 Irish member
will vote for IT, 1t will not meet with seriou
opposition until the prejudices Of the land
owning class are errayed against it in tn
Upper House. II is probable that Mr.. Parnel
expects the Lords to do his dirty work fo
him this summer, as they did a year ago.
they throw out the Land bill the Irish mnsse
win be convinced that they have nothing
expect at Westminster, and this Will lead to