Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-04-25

plicated, without undertaking to solve the
difficulty. He had been encouraged to hope
for solution bv Lord Salisbury's declaring
that the measure would not impose burden
upon the British taxpayer. He was disap-
| pointed, however, when Mr.. Balfour in
formed the House that the measure pledged
the country to the extent Of e33, 900 900
without preventing the possibility of further
amounts being asked. Regarding Mr.. Par
nell's plan, it was new in principle. Its
general purpose was clear, but he was not
certain that he comprehended the details.
conservative laughter
BALFoUR's BILL DIssECTED.
Itwas honorable. even chivalrous, in Mr..
Parnell opposing the Government as he did,
to deem it proper to propose an alternative.
He strongly sympathized with one object of
Mr.. Parnelps plan, whereby the landlords
would not be expatriated, but would be re-
tanned. 1t would be sorrowful conclusion of
the life of the landlord class if when local gov
ernment was established in ireland, they did
not take part in adjusting affairs.
Mr.. Baliour's bill presented a number of du-
bious points which made it difficult to discern
fully the character of the measure. Some Of the
proposals were so obviously Objectionable as to
justify their rejection. A bill of this kind
ought to be confined to landlords already in
possession, it should not encourage landlords
to become buyers of land in order to take ad-
vantage of the enormous boons offered. t"Hear.
hear."l The provision respecting two years
arrears also required a justification which it
would be difficult TO find tCheers].
STILL MORE OBJECTION.
Another objection cutting near the root of
the bill was the method proposed for ascer-
tainIng the rent of the land. 1t was so bad
compensation upon large mass of income that
was to be no change of management, the rent
expenses of eviction nor for bad debts, with
other charges, necessarily falling upon the
landlords. The effect of this was that they
might be giving, instead of II years purchase,
20 or 25 years. He also took the strongest OBJ
lection to placing an embargo upon the local
proposal viriated principle which the House
ought to hold sacred. Then there was nothing
in the bill to prevent the occupier who be-
comes the owner from sub-letting.
Mr.. Madden, the Irish Attorney General. ex-
planned that a tenant could not sub-let without
permission from the Land Commission.
A BILL WITHOUT PRINCIPLE.
principle the Land Court would act in giving
permission. There must be clear understand
ing on this point. There was no principle indi-
Gated in the bill. The only really available and
valuable guarantees provided in the measure
were grants from the Imperial Exchequer on
q daTes nas and GsneT
England and Scotland grants, placing them
wholly at the disposal of the local authorities.
Was it possible the Government would tell the
counties of Ireland that the grant to that coun-
try must be used for the benefit of persons con-
tracing under the bill? ICheers.l 1t was
violation of equality in governing the three
kingdoms, than which he never knew more
glaring instance. tCheers.1
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS.
Soming to what he called constitutional OBJ
jections. one OF which formed absolute reason
against the second reading of the measure, he
urged 1t was obvious that Ireland opposed the
measure, in view of the fact that five-sixths of
the Irish members deliberately and determined
ly opposed it. [Cheers.1 AS the Government
was going to make Ireland its debtor, 1t was
important to consider what was the attitude of
the persons about to be subjected to debt. II
they declined to recognize the obligation it was
tives declined to recognize the binding charae-
ter of the obligation, protesting that the coun-
try did not get value for its money, was 1t
prudent to force the measure upon the people ?
Was it possible to imagine the Government
imposing similar measure upon Scotland in
defiance of the protest of 90 out of the 70
Scol ch members !? [Cheers.]
He objected also to the use of British credit.
He did not entertain all extreme view about the
use of British credit, but he thought that the
Government was precluded from large applica-
tions of that credit for the purchase Of land.
The last general election settled the question.
If the Conservatives were then pledged against
the use of the public credit, so was the Oppo-
sition. This Parliament certainly could not, In
conformity with its honorable obligations, pass
bill instituting local fund having an inter-
minable operation. lCheers.l
A MORE FORMIDABLE OBJECTION.
Another objection was more formidable STILL
This related to State lanilordism. Besides the
large pecuniary risk, the bill involved evils
threefold greater. threatening to produce con-
diticns which would shock humanity, imperil
order and make worse the relations between the
two countries. State landlordism implied the
use of soldiers against the tenants: the use of
every weapon of the State to enforce an unpop-
ular law.
Lastly, it was a sad disappointment to find
under the name of voluntary arrangement
between landlord and tenant device for bring
ing an irresistible pressure upon the tenant
with view of extorting for the landlords ben
eft nearly the whole of the immense boon that
Parliament might confer These objections
covered only part of the dill. He was not sure
that he had as yet obtained a full comprehen-
sion of the measure He had seen many CON-
plicated measures, but he had probably never
seen one so complicated as the bill under dis
This might have been successfully encoun-
tered and the antiquities got rid of, but the
objections, as stated, were fatal.
A VIGOROUS PROTEST.
In conclusion he said: 81 feel it to be nv ab
solute duty to protest against principles of so
fragrant character and so tending to embar-
rass the country in immense pecuniary risks,
while making land purchase not an aim in the
settlement of the general Irish problem, but a
means to further plunge us into the deepest po-
litical embarrassment" [Cheers.I
MIR GoSclen said that Mr., Gladstone's con-
tentiou that the tenants would be deprived of
the benefits intended for them destroyed Mr..
Morley's argument that non-purchasing tell
ants would agItate to get their rents lowered to
the same scale as the purchasers rents. He
agreed with both Mr.. Gladstone and Mr. Par.
nell in desiring to retain the landlords in Ire
land, hut the bill did not necessarily lead to
appropriation. In regard TO obtaining the con-
sent of Irish members. it would be seen if the
bill passed. with whom the tenants were more
satisfed-the Unionists, who supported the
nill 'or the Parnellites, who opposed it.
ICheersl If Scotch tenants were offered a re-
duction of 20 per cent in rents he believed they
would not lose it because their members OBJ
jected. Neither would the Irish tenants. No
portion of the burden was ever likely to fall
Uniouists would not violate their pledges He
admitted that it was not desirable for the State
to become the creditors of the tenants, but he
asked if the object could be attained otherwise.
A DIFFERENT METHOD.
Mr. Gladstone-Yes.
Mr. Goschen said it ought TO be remembered
that the main authority Mr.. Gladstone pro-
thoS 20 ortI.