New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-04-22
IRISH LAND PURCHASE.
Mr.: BALFOURs BILL CRITICISED BY MIX
PARNELL
THE IRISH LEADER MOVES THE REJECTION oi
THE MEASURE AND FURNISHES
HIS REASONS

1oraor Anrl 21.-In the House OF commons
., a.. Nr Parnell moved that the lrish Lana
Purchase bill he rejected by the House speaking
~ sun,ort Of his motion. he said that the measure
iustiGed tbe claims the Nationallss maue nine years
oo He welcomed Mr.. Balfour as the latest re-
or,;, 70 the ranks of the land reformeis- "nie
s,;,,, tho Governments recognition Of the
.-;ncinlo Of the land for the people. Mr.. Parnell
sooIo,od that no could not admit that the bill was
sotisfactorv solution of the land question The
;n;t;o1 question was how far the British taxpayers
would GO in lending credit TO the irish landlord
The experience gained by tie discussion OF Mr.
Gladstone's Land bill in 1886 showed that the
taxpayer would not go far enough to finally settle
the land difficulty. The present bill was means
simply TO enable one-ninth of the owners of land
in Ireland-tIese being the larger absentee land
]ords-to sell out at eXorbitant prices leaving
their poorer resident brethren in the lurch.
Mr. Parnen objected to the bill on the ground
that it did not provide for carrying out what lt
proposed. while it exhausted the only Irish credit
available. The BILL he declared. was unsafe to
the imperial taxpayer. the guarantees and counter
guarantees it provided being ilusory and insult
hcient According to Mr.. Balfour's figures. relief
would be provided for only three -fourthS OF the
tenants
Mr. Parnell further objected to the bill because
il wouN exhaust the Irish credit without the
consent of the Irish, and without any local control
in the application of the money TO be distributed
under tn. provisions of the bill.
Again. while coercion is applied as it is now
the tenant can never be free agent. The bill
did not deal with the congested districts HIS
own proposal he said was the same that he made
in 1881, with few notifications Dealing with
the insuiiciency of the bill, Mr. Parnell said
that the land question was not so large as many
people supposed, but they could make it large
by the method Of purchase proposed. If adopted,
the bill must make the question larger question.
The principle of the bill was to buy estates, and
e40, 900, 900 was ridiculously inadequate sum
for the purpose. Ireland contained 100000
acres, the Poor Law valuation of which was
G9,0OO,000, amounting at eighteen and a half
years purchase to Gl66. 100000, which amount
would be necessary to provide solution Of the
land question. Otherwise three-quartcrs Of the
question would be left untouched. Nine -tenths Of
the landlords would have prospect except TO con-
tlnue the strife with tenants trying 10 obtain
the same treatment the favored minority.
Continuing, Mr.. Parnel said true test Of the
worth OF the guarantees provided would be for
MIR. GOschen 10 take them 10 the London market
and try what he could realize upon them. The
effect complete settlement of the question under
local authority Otherwise the bill is a parody
on land purchase and swindle on the English
If you adopt the limit of tenants not exceeding $50
valuation, You reduce the amount needed to 55 per
cent Of the sum mentioned In the blu Mr Baour
ss s rent q Judicial tenants @ TO e
. Sbtse to pay OF the inost onerous encumorances
tenants viii get the so per- cent reduction they camor
for. without which peaceabe agrarian relations are
In typical case. a landlord at s1oo yearly, who
e3sumSerea to the extent ito Of m Il @ NE e
possl he gives reduction Of 30 per cent on 500
that he will only have to deal with So per Of
the area of his estate That reduction amounts to to
the funds Mr.. Balfour proposes, twenty years pur
chase. or $3.50. You may treat this either as a
at loan or as The ne~ then S
s3l, with sinking fund against s27 1os under Mr.
amount 70 e34 los. loss Of only 13 34 per cent
the original gina nsome M Of po sh9 instead ta Of loss c
typical cSe Mr. BalfOur says he requires $4,000 10 !
settle @ u, 2; question Won oSE Sy 1rsnTe He T@s' G the he
sum that Mr. Balfour requires in order 10 secure a
purchase system you only secure reduction Of 20
per cent.
The Parnellites are divided in their opinion on
Mr.. Parnels notion They think an explanation
Sir George o. Treveyan objected to the bill on
the ground that it was introduced in the interest
Of individuals and not of the State The Liberals.
he said desired. not to remove landlords from Ire
land. but TO increase their number from the ranks
OF solvent reliable tenants The present bill dealt
with good and bad alike. The proposals
relating 10 the congcsted districts altogether
inadequate He protested against the enormous
salaries proposed for the Commissioners, and |
against the representative character Of the |
proposed land court. In the event Of serious |
war the scheme would collapse from inability 10 !
borrow at l-2 per cent. The measure was |
unworlable, and would produce discord instead |
Of content.
The debate adjourned until Thursday.