New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-08-21
LORDS AND COMMONS.
EIR COLLISION ON THE ARREARS BILL

per House under his leadership entered npon con-
fict with the House of Commons. The subject then
in dispute was certain amendments TO the Land Act
of 1881 but what made the occasion memorable
was Lord Sasbury's challenge to the Government
to resign or dissolve This Was n distinct effort to
rcadjust the relations of the Government 10 the
House OF Lords, and to make the life
of q Ministry dependent upon a hostile
vote Of the Peers-to reverse, in short, tho
whole current of constitutional procedure. and TO
restore to the Lords an authority they had parted
with half a century ago. Once, aud once only, had
they attempted 10 resume il, or rather mcdtated
resuming lt-in 1916 when the Corn Law struggle
reached its height Then, under the guidance Of
the Duke of Wellington, they yielded, and never
till last year did they, n measure OF the first i'm
pOrtance, make a serious stand against the Com
mons. They have, indeed, rejected bills which
the Commons desired to pass. Only the year before
in 1880, they rejected the Compensation for Dis
tuTbance bill But the Government did not then
deem themselves strong enough IN the Commons
or for whatever reason did not chOOse-tO
enter upon a conflict with the House OF
Lords. There was no question of resignation
or dissolution. This success turned Lord Sasbury's
head-never very cool head at best. When tho
crisis of last year came he really believed he could
turn the Ministry ont. He used his great majority
IN the Lords without scruple He nailed his
cOlors to the mast And he raised storm IN tho
country and panic among his own followers be-
fore which he bent The colors he had nailed to tho
mast he had to haul down as best he might not
without damage TO the coors and to bin who had
made them fast in that extremely conspicuous posi-
tion. 1t was thought Lord Salisbury had learned
the lesson of that catastrophe. But the proceed
ings of last week and this show that he had not
learned it. He is not a very teachable person, and
his want of docility and adventurous temper
threaten again to throw the kingdom into con-
fusion.
Another sort of experiment has been tired by Lord
Salisbury in the interval between the last and tho
present crisis. lie proposed and carried in tho
House of Lords early the present session his
famous Commission OF Inquiry into the Land act.
The Commission was device for Obs,ruciing tho
operation of the Land act by SIDE wind II was
regarded by the Ministry as an atteYpt % nullify
the act by the vote of a single House. They met il
by resolution of dissent which the Conservatives
feebly resisted as a resolution of censure on tho
Upper Chamber, but which the House of Commons
none the less adopted by the enormous maonty Of
1873. Lord Salisbury peTseyered with his Commls-
sion, bat it became a purely partisan Commission.
The Ministry and their supporters in the Lords re-
fused to sit on it or have anything TO do with it,
This refusal. coupled with the vote of h Commons
Salisbury meant to destroy, and destroyed that au-
thOrty OF the Commission itself with the country
which lie sought TO create.
Now there Is a crisis, a new conflict or posi-
bllity of conflict, between the House OF Lords and
the House OF Commons. TIE ii st remark one has
to make about II Is that crisis a year is too
many Whatever the occasion OF these successive
struggles may be, each one of them raises anew q
question which is not fE+te interest OF the Lords
TO raise the question whether the Lords ought 10
continue to be legislative body. The occasion Of
this latest collision Is the Arrears bill which tho
Commons passed and which the Lords have
amended" That IS a Parliamentary word Of
various Specification. When the Lords use it, it
commonly means TO mutilate, distgure or pervert
There are tGo ways of looking at tins business.
each interesting. O.e is to cons der the merits Of
the question at between the two houses. That
ne not take US long. The House of Commons
pissed the Arrears bill by a final majority OF more
than hundred. This bill, whether wise or unwse,
had perfectly definite object 1t was a bill TO
stop eyictions. and 10 let tenants get access 10 the
Land Court who could not go into thar court with
out it. In one word, the object of the bill is
that the tenant should continue in his hold
ing In a large class Of cass it takes tho
power of eviction out of the hands of tn, land
lord. Practically, it secured the poorest
tenants III lreland-those whose rent is under $50
ycar-possession of their holdings. I'm order to do
this. it gave those tenants, conditions need not
repeat, the right OF immediate appeal 20 certain tri-
bun.ls If the tribunal should be- satisfied of tho
tenants inability 70 pay his arrears of rent which
had accrued before the current year. and if he paid
the rent tor the current year. then the state stepped
in, paid hllf the outstanding debt not exceeding
one years rent in all and cancelled all the rest The
MIA of is IN o. he
ant fresh start in life. and to relieve hun from de-
pendence on the mercy of his landlord Lord Sails
bury and carried provision completely re-
veTsng all his BY the bill il passed the Commons
the tenants right to 20 before the tribunal was alb
sOlntc. Lord Salisbury makes it dependent Oh the
consent Of the landlord. That Is his hrst naend-
ment BY the second he enacts that the unpaid
arrears shall not be cancelled but shall remain n
permanent hen upon the tenant-rght; the value
of this tenantrIeht. moreover being taken into
count in estimating the ability of the tenant to pay
and determining upon his claim 10 the benefit OF
the act for any purpose There are other points OF
divergence between the houses, bat these are the
mos; important
Whether these amendments are in themselves,
abstIactly considered reasonable and jus', Is not
the question any moro than it is the question
whether he Arrears bill whole is reasonable and
Just What Ministers say and the House of Commons
say is that they regard thsArrcars bill the
sary complement of last years Land Act. lt is
part, and necessary part, of their whole policy
win reference to Ireland. The Government is
clearly emitted, ii il remains Government. To
carry out its policy a whole The amendments
OF Lord Salisbury, if asscnted to by tho Govern
ment. would prevent the Government from carry
ing out its policy az a whole. They make the
Arrears bill. considered part OF that policy,a a
futile and foolish measure, and therefore 1t is tnat.
though one NAV have doubts about the soundnes5
OF this policy one is forced to say hat he Coy rn-
ri,rl,f H., u,lh, rnv fo