New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-11-20
ASSAILING A TORY LAW.
TILE GRAND OLD MAN ATTACKS THE ASH
BOURNE ACT.


BOURNE ACT.
THE GOVERNMENTS DEMAND FOR MORE MONEY
FRAUGHr WITH DANGER TO THE
IRISH TENANTS
London, Nov. 10.-In the House Of Commons
this evening Mr. Madden, Solicitor General for
Ireland in the absence of Mr.. Balfour Chief Secre-
tary for Ireland who is ILL., brought in the bill to
further facilitate the purchase by tenants OF land
in Ireland by adding 10000 600 pounds TO the
amount applicable under the Ashbourne Act Mr.
Madden, in explaining the proposed measure de-
scribed the Ashbourne Act as a great success
There had been, he said, 1888 signed agree
ments for the purchase of land of which s632 had
been completed. There were only two courses
open to the Government One was to abandon the
scheme of land purchase and the other was to
extend the act The fact that the act had been
n conspicuous success justified the Government in
seeking TO enlarge its operations.
When Mr.. Madden had finished Mr.. Gladstone
arose. He was received with prolonged cheering
from the Opposition. Mr.. Gladstone moved the
following amendment to the Government pro-
posal:
That IN lieu of voting 5000 900 pounds, 1t is expe
disnt in view the lamenable suerings arising from
recent evfctons in Ireland to extend tho land law OF
1857 SO as to empower the courts to reduce or cancel
arrears of rcnts that found to DO excessive
He complained that the Government had broken
their pledge TO the House. after obtaining the
whole command of the time at the disposal OF
the members under engagement that no contro-
versial measures would be introduced. Here was
n bill of the first Importance challenging DIS
cussion 1t was submitted with the threat that
il would be put forward daily until it was Set
tied. His protest was equally against the mode
~. bod in xpbi
its discussion was to be pressed. His amendment
did not strike at the Ashbourno Act, nor would
it necessarily stop its operation He did not
desire to stop the operation of the act, whatever
he might consider its dangers, and he did not
oppose the bill because it proposed to keep the
act alive.
MR.. GLADSTONE OBJECTS TO THE AMOUNT.
Mr.. Gladstone continued that he objected to
II because of the amount demanded. The Gov
ernment ought TO have asked Parliament for
limited grant, which would suffice to enable
them to continue the operations OF the act untli
the spring, when Parliament could reconsider
the whole matter The Opposition would cheer
fully agree to such an advance; but the UoV-
ernment instead of taking that course pro
duced bill involving Parliament in fresh
approval Of it's land purchase policy. CCrles OF
Hear. Heard
Mr. Gladstone went to say that 1t was the
manifest design of the Government to wlthdraw
the subject of Irish land from the view OF Parlla-
ment for several years. (Cheers) That was not
the course which could be allowed The Oppo-
stion was not insc,sible to the value of land pur-
chase He did not desire to see the landlords, or
any other class, removed in body. He wanted
10 see then. not less but great deal more, Irish
than they were, and to see them residents instead
of absentees The principle OF the previous land
acts was totally different from the Ashbourne
Act under which 100000 pounds were oD-
tanned apparently as a precedent for another hve
millions thus drawing the House by slow degrees
into q system from which there was no escape
from putting the land into the hands OF the
State, making the State the lmmedlate iahoioru
without proper guarantees. How different was
the proposal from the Liberal side when Mr.
Trevelyan laid down the principle that the Uov-
ernment should not ask the National taxpayers to
advance purchase money unless the taxpayers IN
Ireland evinccd confidence in the tenants by Of
fering local guarantees. He Gladstone had al
WAYS objected to the Ashbourne Act as giving the
Initiative of purchase to the landlords; whom he
considered second, as the peasants ought TO nave
the initiative. If an Imperial guarantee was ever
given for the purchase of land IN Ireland the Sc
curity must convey moral certainty 10 the Gov
crnment lChcers.J
WHY DODGE THE QUESTION OF ARREARS?
What reason, continued the speaker, had the
Government for refusing with such tenaclty to
deal with the arrears? Were they the means OF
insuring the servitude of the tenant? Parnell-
jte cheers) 1t certain that this bill would
give the landlords leverage to bring up rents,
while it would enable only handful of tenants
20 acquire holdings. Certainly it would assist
the Government in their land-purchase scheme
but under what inadequate and precari0us security
for the repayment of advances! Doubtless the
Irish tenants could be praised as scrupuIous IN the
payment of fair rents, but if another collapse OF
agricultural prices occurred, the farmers might
be unable to pay their nstalmcnts under the bill.
The Government were not justified IN relying upon
the tenants will 10 pay after the recent declard-
ton of Lord Salisbury that the majority OF
5000. 600 in Ireland were bent upon putting down
the minority of 1900, 000 order to get at ana
rife their pockets Cheers)
II Irishmen had no respect for the pockets OF
their countrymen, were they likely to respect the
English Excheque Were those who have been
thus described by the head of the Government
0aurhter and cheers) This land purchase had
no immediate claims to the character OF the ar
hears question. The tenants themselves had W
rentlv demanded q settlement or arrears. "A
similar necessity had been acknowledged in the
ease of the crofters of Scotland. Much greater
had been the need of Ireland, where the arrears
we're running without limit and led TO paralys SIS
tf the farmers engagem, ns and an increasing flow
bf evictions. Evictions upon arrears prevented
the tenant from obtaining the benefit OF judicial
rent The arrears were thus weapon against
the tenants defeating and annulng the land law
which had been passed for their benefit Ihcy
made the landlords masters OF Jne Lana ict ana
masters of the conditions for the sale OF the land
and the fortunes of the tenants.
WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT DO.
II the Government had the tenants welfare
Earnestly at heart; If. instead of supporting the
landlords, they meant to relieve distressed ten
ants, they would deal with arrears instead OF
pressing a dangerous measure which provided ma
chinery for preventing a reduction of rent and
which afforded facilities for augmenting rents and
multiplying evictions, with all their horrible in
cidents He asked the House to intervene and
preyent q recurrence of mischief too certain to
ensue, perhaps a greatly augmented scale, under
the Governments policy. Let them do justice tc
Ireland In the matter of arrears. lCheersl