The Irish standard., 1890-05-31
A GRAND MAIDEN SPEECH.
Hon Vesey Knox Delivers His First
Speech in the House Of
Commons.
THE BEST FOR TWENTY YEARS.
That is What the Dublin Freeman's Jour
nal Says Of the Address Which is
Against the Land Bill.


nal Says Of the Address Which is
Against the Land Bril-.
In the House of Commons on the oath
nlt., Mr.. Vesey Knox, Mr.. Biggar's
successor, made the maiden speech. He
spoke on the Balfour land bill, and
with such good effect as to receive the
heartiest congratulations when he sat
6owa. The Dublin Freeman's Journal
calls it the best speech Of its kind for
twenty years. Some extracts may be OF
interest to those who might wish to see
OF what metal the man vino has been
called to fill poor Joe Biggar's seat is
made.
After speaking of the Ashbourne act,
and what it has not done for Ireland7s
good, Mr.. Knox, who announced that
he was speaking as au Ulster man, said:
The present bill differed m uch from the
Ashbourne act, and where it differed it
differed for the worse, and wherever the
Ashbourne act required amendment he
had left the work undone. So that the
measure had been subjected TO more
objection than any introduced within
the memory of man. Hear, hear, and.
cheers In the first place it stood CON
demned because there was no power Of
compulsory sale, and without compul-
sory sale the question could not be
settled Hear, hear The Ulster farm
ers were at the present moment almost
s1nrepresenred in that House. So bit
terly did thev feel their positie II that a
number of Ulster PRESBYTERIAN farmers,
who met the other day to declare that
no bill would be satisfactory that did
not contain the compulsory principle,
that a number OF farmers 1000 IN num-
Der, meeting IN u1f Orange Hall, had to
ask his honorable friend, the member
for st. Stephens division Of Dublin, to
present their petition for them. Hear.
hear. and loud Irish cheers This
whole battalion Of the constituents of
the honorable member for North Ar
magh protest against the bill [cheersl,
and he held that they were right in pro-
testing. The effect of this voluntary
principle was bad alike for the tenant
and for the state. II was bad for the
tenant, because free contract in Ireland
was impossible, and it was bad for the
state, because the only real security for
repayment Of those instruments was the
value of the land. [Hear, hear. If the
tenant once fell into arrears and they
had to evict, all their torce Of military
and police would noE be sufficient to
keep peace in Ireland. The voluntary
principle was bad in another way. He
supposed they wanted to get rid Of the
bad landlords, but they did no such
thing. for there were many places out
side the congested districts which had
been made miserable by bad landlords,
and those places they did not touch.
Neither did they touch
THE SMALL. TILLAGE FARMERS.
They had suffered infinitely more than
the large graziers from agricultural de-
preston, and thew were left untouched,
because the larger owners could bring
more pressure to operate for the pur-
pose. In the return for the end OF 1883
up to March Of this year he found that
Earl Shannon had sold 55 holdings for
G45, 600 [hear, hear], showing that it
was very expensive luxury making
peasant proprietors out of these large
graziers. [Cheersl Lord Lls5owel had
sold three holdings in the county of
Cork for $1,000, and one in Kerry for
e2500, The Marquis Of Waterford had
sold ia holdings in the county Water
ford for ELS, GOO. the average valuation
being s51, or over the limit which the
honorable member for Cork thought
necessary. Sir George Colthurst had
sold one holding in the county Cork for
$4,000. Hear, hear.] How the land
courts sanctioned that advance he could
not understand, as they could only sane
tion that amount on whole estate. In
Munster G541 ,0O0 had been advanced to
constitute 81l peasant proprietors, the
average value being s36. while the
average valuation in Munster was ell
With regard 10 absentees, whom the
attorney general said he wished to, get
rid of, there were some absentees who
were not bad landlord and who really.
spent a good deal Of money in the coun
try by, deputy. AS they had been spend
ng large sums on improving their
property. there was no loss Of net in-s
come in selling their lands. In the
case ofthe London com panies he should
say there was no loss Of pet income
when they sold but had they got rid q
the absentees f,.l the contrary
gS7l having been need yto the
I,ondoln1g & ,nlapa l 81 IS # 81 tl,s il14