Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-05
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PAID ron.
The Feature of MI. Morley's Irish
Land Bill.


The Feature of MI. Morley's Irish
Land Bill.
In the house Of commons yesterday after
noon Mr.. Morley defended the report Of
the recent Irish land committee, ridiculing
the idea that 1t was one-sided or ISSUED by
a packed majority.
In explaining the present Irish land bill
Mr.. Morley said that at the foundation Of
the governments proposals was a broad
principle Of social policy toward ireland.
A general rule>of protecting the tenant in
ownership. II improvements were made,
was absolutely indispensable in Ireland,
owing to the decisions Of the Irish courts
which upset the intentions Of parliament.
The government now proposed that all the
improvements on holding should be pre-
sumed TO- to have been done by the tenant;
directed the courts to give ample compen-
sation and security to a tenant for i'm
provements. and 1t is also proposed to
amend the act of 1870 80 as to make it
perform its functions In the way 1t was
designed 1t should. Consequently 1t would
be modified in order to prevent the I'M
doubted intention Of parliament being frus-
trated. The compensation to be paid to a
tenant would be in money or in moneys
worth.
It was also proposed by this measure
that holdings should be subject to atatu-
tory conditions until the new rents were
fixed and the statutory conditions thereby
revived. 1t also makes the term of the
holdings ten instead of fifteen years. at
revised.
In regard to the landlords right of pre-
emption, the tenant was to be allowed the
free sale Of his interest; but before selling
ne had to give notice to the landlord, who
might purchase the tenancy for the sum
agreed upon. When the court fixed a fair
rent, the landlord might demand that the
court specify the value of the holding In
fan rviohn 70
landlord wished to buy.
where a tenant was in occupancy as care
taker Tor hve years, and had discharged
all the obligations incidental to the hold
ing. he should. at the end of that period
be deemed to be present tenant again with
all former rights Of occupancy.
1t was further proposed by the bill that
all arrears of rent might be recovered
within the next two years. After then the
landlord would be able to recover two
years arrears only.
Mr.: Morley concluded a speech lasting
two hours with a final proposal to re-enact
section ID of the act of 1891 with slight
notifications, in order to meet the ques-
ton Of the evfcted tenants. He then made
fervent appeal to the house to carefully
Prospects Of the Bill.
The lobby correspondent of the London
Times says that. generally speaking. the
unionists are inclined to admit that the
deavored to meet the Irish landlords half
way. Therefore there is q prospect that
the bill will pass the house of lords, and
that the government will not offer an OBJ
stinate resistance should the committee Of
the house Of lords insist upon the introduc-
ton of additional safeguards.
The lobby correspondent of the Standard
predicts that there will be a protracted
discussion of the measure when 1t reaches
the committee stage. He adds however,
that the unfonfsts accept the broad prin-
ciple of the bill. The Parnellites he saws
will endeavor to introduce the principle
of compulsion in regard to evicted tenants.
The Times, in a leader, dwells upon the
unexpected elaborateness of Mr.. Morley's
bill, dealing, as 1t does, with almost as
many difficult and complicated questions as
the statute it processes to amend. The
paper continues: 1T will be necessary to
separate the practical improvement pro-
posal from projects which. when they were
proposed by Mr.. Parnell were rejected
by Mr.. Gladstone himself as aiming at a
virtual reconstruction of the land act, and
tionizing that act. One of the most re-
markable Of Mr.. Morley's proposals, that
only two years arrears shall be recover
able. seems likely to multiply the number
of victims"
The London Daily News says there Is
some talk Of the opposition allowing the
bill to pass its second reading without q
division. This, however, does not conceal
the avowed intention Of the landlord party
In the house of commons to resist to the
utmost the main proposal of the BILL that
tenants improvements shall be regarded
as their own property.