THE EVICTED TENANTS BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXV, Issue 225, 20 September 1894, Page 3

THE EVICTED TENANTS BILL.

INTERESTING DEBATE ON SECOND READING.

I B b moßt interesting debate there had been hays our London corrospondenb) in the Commons since Mr Gladsto.e lefb, came off on 'Monday evening, the occasion being the ■econd reading of the Evicted Tenants Bill. The ' Westminster Gazette's' special reporter aaya the chief interest arose from a display of divided counsels in the Opposition camp. Mb Chamberlain's Attack : An Essay ; in Criticism. Mr Chamberlain's speech was a very able and searching piece of analytical criticism, gnch'as he has brought to bear on each of the Government's Bills in tarn. Every big measure of retorm, introduoßdinfco a delicate »ntl complex social fabric, carriea with it, alone with ibs beneficial effects, certain Haulers of disintegration. It is always into thesetbatMrChamberlain setshis teeth. As we noticed on the occasion of.his Home Vale speeches, Mr Chamberlain's oratory is one long cry of • Fire!' Heralways • wants to make your flesh creep.' Under the force of this training, Mr Chamberlain ia rapidly becoming a purely critical and negative force in politics, and a mind that has in its time shown great) constructive power is losing its grip of positive idfcas. Is it> the effect of so long an absence from Ministerial rank? He'began with the date. 'Why fix 1879 r" According to the Parnell Commission, there Were 13.000 evictions from 1879-up bo 1886, and there have been many since—'there havobeen 1,400,' he added hastily, 'under Mr Morley.' How then could Mr Morley jay thab the Bill only affected 5.0C0 persona? If this is true, what exaggeration there has been in this Irish controversy ! Why, only 1 per cent, of the people have been evicted .'—not so many as in an English village !' And then, whab danger in reinstating these tenants ! What envies among thoae who were nob pub back —whab encouragement to dishonesty—whab trouble with the tenants in possession—wbab a reward for that; 'illegal combination,' the Plan of Campaign— whab a bad lesson to the tenants of the State under the Purchase Acts 1 Whab a precedent for years to come! These tenanbß may be evicted again, or others may be evicted, and then what will happen ? . They will all consider thab they have a righb to be reinstated! And so on—through all the gamut) of terror and fear, playing on the feelings of the cautious, dissecting the terms of the bill, and earning the cheers ot the Tories, with a prudent eye on a possible ueed of a loophole for the future. Scarcely had Mr Chamberlain But down when Mr Healy was on him, in his most tigrish fashion, open book in hand. ' You denounce this Bill as dishonest, and yet you drew up and passed a stronger Bill in 1882—the Arrears Act! It gave everything that this Bill givea, more generously —compulsion, reinstatement of the evicted, and, further, Imperial liability. And, ib was drafted by you the morning after theKilraainhamTreaty. This Bill, yon say, encourages tho Plan of Campaign : bub that Bill encouraged a far worse thing, the No Rent manifesto ! You strain aba gnat and swallow a camel!' It was a vigorous and powerful attack, delivered with a vehemenb viciousnees which carried the Irishmen out of their season with joy. Mr Chamberlain made no attempt to reply, and took it, it must be confessed, in very good temper.: In fact, he seemed amused, and gave no encouragement fcb the Tories, who began to pepper lA'r Healy with questions—questions always skilfully and successfully turned aeide. •Why,' asked Mr Healy finally, 'why does every settlement of an Irish problem resulb in a new grievance? Because,' he cried, 'you settle them so badly. You never pass an Act without leaving a loophole. You allow your Commissions and judges to destroy your handiwork f and he ended impressively with a peroration calling on the House to remember the past, to give generously whab would have to be given in the end —and to ' strike away the plank under the agitator.' Mr Russell's Offkr. The debate was kept up to a high level through the evening. Mr T. W. Kassell announced his policy in a difficult oration, carefully trimming between the Tory Scylla and the Liberal Charybdis. He could sob vote for the Bill because ib was compulsory and pauperising—1 Ib ia an evicting Bill.' Mr Russell's own scheme simply amounted to an extension of the Land "Purchase > Acts, using the money nob as a means of help, bub as a security. But the most remarkable point in his speech was his offer—to which we sincerely hope, if only for the humour of thething, thab Mr Healy will tie him, Mr Healy had quoted Mr Russell's old remark—that Lord Clanricarde ought to be expropriated. 'I still agee to that,' cried Mr Russell, ' and if Mr Healy likes to bring in a Bill for the expropriation of Lord Clanricarde. he can put my name on the back of the Bill.' A little later Mr Dillon canio in with an eloquenb appeal—* Do nob sacrifice 5,000 peasantry to the mere desire of annoying us Irish members'—and after a trying interlude of Sir Ashmead Bartlett, Mr Balfour wound up the case for his side by a vigorous running fight with the Irish members quite in the old style. A Running Fight. t lt turned round complicated points in thfc Acts of 1881 and 1887, and was nob a very edifying proceeding—nob without) a resemblance to fcho quarrels of a Petby Conrr. ' Will ib be believed,' says Mr Balfonr, • that Mr Healy was deliberately deceiving you ? Will it bo believed thab the Act says otherwise ?' 'Nonsense.' ' The honourable member contradicts me. I give way. Leb him •Rive chapter and verse.' 'Do you refer to section 13 of the 1881 Act? It has never been used.' • Then why nob? We can only give you the tools; we cannot make you uso them,' A similar running %ht—yet more difficult) to follow—went on between Mr Balfour and Mr O'Brien. The effect was a somewhat scrappy and ineffective speech, riddled by shots from Mr Healy, now thoroughly angry. For instance: 'You speak of hard cases—are there nob hard evictions in England ?' Mr Healy: ' Oab of their own houses V (Cheers.) *I am surprised ab those cheers. Have we nob done our utmosb to give the Irish tjnanb every improvemenb?' The irrepreslible Mr Healy: 'Ask Russell.' After ull, ib waa impossible bo add much to these running rejoinders. ! VYi Shall Not Be Afraid to Face THE COUNTBY.' Mr Balfour waa much too long, bub be ended on a very vigorous and denunciatory note. ' I object to this Bill because we are asked to become fellow-conspirators with members below the gangway —to help them in an illegal and futile conspiracy.' Mr Morley was left only a quarter of an hour. He made the besb of ib. A racing ■speech can never be very artistic, the arguments have to be packed too closely, and 4 thereis no room for the play of elbow. His best point was his remark to Mr Carson, * I "Ope you will nob join those who think they can make a small point big by speaki lnK very loud.' But the House was tired and restless, and caught little more than *J»o giat of Mr Morley's defiance—'We ~shall not be afraid to face our constituents, w p.tever may happen in another place!' t Finally came the division, close on twelve o dock. The result was a rather smaller majority than bad been expected — 259 to