St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-05-02
BALFOUR IS Cheeky.
He Claims to Be Honest in
Pushing His Land
Bill.
A PerniciOus Measure Framed
in the Interest Of Irish
Landlords.
Patriotic CeltS Blamed for
Early Marriages and Their
Large Families.
Truculent Commoners Send
the PepniciouS Bill to It's
Second Reading.

leu GldU GIle duJdchS tildt udu OOOh H1o"N
on the measure, though often violent in
form, had been hesitating in substance.
Those who had used the most vigorous
language against the government pro-
posals seemed to be the most hampered
by a feeling that the bill was
in accordance with the best traditions
of every party in the house, besides the
fact that. they themselves had been
the supporters of similar plans. For
instance, there was Sir William
VernOn-Harcourt, who had pounded
away at the bill wilfully oblivious OF
the fact that he had been a party to
measure that was open TO every oDJec-
ton that he urged against the pres
ent bill. The opposition criticism was
a sham. and nothing more clearly
showed the disorganiZed state of the
opponents Of the government. Their
speeches were mutually destructive.
Sir William Vernon-Harconrt had told
them that the bill would excite
the jealousy of the nen-buyers
on account of the benefits
tenant buyers received. Mr.. Gladstone
had declared that the whole of the
boon given tenants would he absorbed
by the landlords. Sir William Vernon
Harcourt objected to the hypothecation
of local rates for land purchase under
any circumstances, while Mr.. Parnell
based the whole of his speech on the
objection that the government was TAX
ing the
One Kind of Security
available for land purchase. Other
opponents objected to the state as a
landlord, while Mr.. Dillon wanted the
whole Of congested districts compul-
sorily bought, the state to become
upon the proposals Of the bill did
not exist among the opposition. Still,
he believed that many of their sugges-
tons were designed to assist the gov
eminent. He approved Mr.. ParnelPs
proposal in favor of filming down rents,
provided, first, that this scheme
he distinctly suhordinated to the main
scheme for establishing peasant own
ers, and second, that the tenants
where rents are fined down be per-
manent. Mr.. Dilion's suggestions re-
garding congested districts largely coin
cided with the governments plans. In.
regard TO migration or emigration, it
would rest with the boards in the con-
gested districts. not with the govern
ment, which alternate should be
adopted. The boards would find migrat-
ing families expensive, as they would
have to be provided with houses cost
ing, under the laborers' act, e100,
and land of 500 yearly value
at twenty years purchase. in
volving a total loss of $500 for every
family. No eXchequer could bear the
cost of doing that on large scale. He
agreed that everything ought to be done
IL cultivate fishing in the west of Ire
land. Merely to multiply the num-
Der of harbOrs would not effect the
desired end. The government plans
ought to be judged in connection with
measures passed or proposed for these
districts. The Irish members had been
Rich i'm Projects
for dealing with the property of land
lords, but could they point to a single
bill really dealing with the vital diff
culties of congested districts? They
had made many speeches throughout
Ireland, but had they ever
urged the ineXpediency and
unwisdom of early marriages? Mr.. Dill
lon had thrown the whole blame for the
large west coast population upon the
landlords. Some responsibility for
their having children surely rested
on the parents. Tim Healy Gn-
terruptingl-Send Mrs. Besant there.
The speaker Immediately called Mr..
Healy to order. Continuing, Mr.. Bal
four said that the ParnelliteS had re-
Trained from touching the evils of the
subdivision of land in the west. and
had refrained from urging CONSOLE
dalton or the emigration of those who
could not earn living at home. Their
view was that families ought to remain,
no matter whether they could earn
nicious doctrine was never heard.
The government dealt with the diff
Guilty of congestion in good faith. hop
ing that its plans would stimulate in
dustries and Improve agriculture. These
plans should have been met by the
opposition in a fair spirit. as an
honest attempt to solve a great prob
lem. Referring to Mr.. Chamberlain's
idea that the local authorities ought
to be given regulative powers
over contracts under the bill.
Mr.. BaIfour admitted that if
Ireland was in normal condition it
would be desirable to associate county
councils in the great work in which the
imperial parliament was engaged.
But was Ireland in a nor
NAL condition? The bill had
no raison d. etre unless it was to effect
objects not merely local, but national.
The house ought not to allow
itself to be frustrated in carrying the
benefits of the measure by any
local authority likely to be influenced
by political reasons. The local author
tiles III many parts of Ireland worked as
much on political lines as the Irish
members did. If it suited them to balk
and misuse the efforts of the national
government and to
Abuse Its Liberality.
could they be depended upon to carry
out the designs of parliament He
hoped and believed the time would
come when normal condition
OF the country would justify
handing 1t over to county councils with
power to say whether great national OBJ
| bill had been assailed on the
ground that it committed the Brit
| ish eXcheQuer to losses under non
| payments if it went into effect. The ex
| chequer would be none the worse. The
loss would fall entirely upon the local
authorities. So the locality had the
strongest peeuniary interest in
seeing that tenants fulfilled
their obligations. He did not believe
the bill would tend to drive out the
landlords. On the contrary, by dimin-
ishing social friction the landlords
would be induced to live more fire.
quentIy in Ireland, with greater
powers of usefulness. Dealing with
the arguments regarding the endanger-
ing of British credit, he contended that
the measure obviated all risks. He de
MED the possibility of a general re
pudlation. Public opinion would no
support and local interests would moi
tolerate reputation. In concluding,
he urged that the bill had especial
merits. 1t provided adequate security
II provided for poor years and inability
to pay, which might arise to the
most thrifty and industrious tenant. II