A REVIEW OF THE DEBATE ON PARNELL'S LAND BILL.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 175, 23 October 1886, Page 2 (Supplement)

A REVIEW OF THE DEBATE ON PARNELL'S LAND BILL.

New York, September 23.— G. W. Smalley's cable special to the " Tribune" from London of September 22nd says :— The two days' debate on Parnell'B Tenant Relief Bill was but a languid performance The House was neither crowded nor excited. Parnell Btated his case in a lucid, businpss-liko speooh, moderate in tone and plausible, rather than, for House of Commons purposes, convincing. There was, indeed, after all the -preliminary discussion, a certain air of unreality about the debate. The negotiations had fallen through with the Government, or certain members of the Government, originally included to grant concessions, found Pamcll's price higher than they could afford to give. Lord Hartington stood out against any surrender in Ulster, and the Tories threatened to mutiny. Parnell himself, as the Tories thought, had no real wish to come to terms. Their view has always boen that Parnell prel ferrod that his Bill should not paas, Ho wanted it. they said, as a basis for the winter campaign. There was no trace in Parnell's speech of any such purpose, but there were many hints in the long speeches that redress ot actual grievances was not Parnell's chief object. The Iriah leader surprised the House by Baying that he regarded the iirst as the most important section of his bill— that which allows any statutory tenant, whether in danger of eviction Or not, to apply to a court for an abatement of rent. This, liowover, like the other provisions of the bill, rests on the alleged inability of tenants to pay their present rents, owing to the fall in prices of agricultural produce. That was the question to which Parnell had addressed himself. His case Is that thoro has been a very marked fall I in prices of the chief articles of Irish produce during the last two years. Butter is down 27 per cont, beof* 15 per cent, pork 20, mutton 18. wool 27, and stock 20 per cent. " The result ie, says Parnell, "that the Land Act OMSBI has proved of absolutely no beneflt to the Irish farmer," a remark which Gladstone hardly relished. Rents uudcr that Act have been reduced 19 per cent, but prices have fallen an average of 22 per cent. Parnell's strongest argumont; perhaps, was based ou the fact that the Land Courts are now actually reducing routs on an average 82 per cent, lower than during 1884. The landlords themselves, or the best of them, are doing this voluntarily, like English landlords under similar circumstances, returning to their tenants large percentages of their rent. Those who refuse to make concessions are in the minority, Parnell admits, but evictions will nevertheless increase in number during the winter. It is against this minority of landlords, who want the last pound of flesh, that Parliament is asked to protect tenants. Many are the answers made to this startling array of facts, but generalities are opposed to details. Lord Hartington, Sir Michael HicksBeach and others urge that this fall in prices began before the rents now complained of were fixed. They allege that, admitting the fall of prices, the total yield has incroased and that the receipts have increased accordingly. They use in support of this view the argument that tenants have proved their ability to pay groat prices for a tenant's right ; call attention to the increase in savings bank deposits, and even contend that large subscriptions to the Land League and the large expenditure for drink prove that tenants are prosperous. Sir Michael Hicks - Beach denied that Parnell had E roved his case, and claimed that his ill was really one for reducing Irish rents 50 per cent. He did not deny that a large class ot tenants were unable to pay rent, but insisted that the reason of their inability ought to be inquired into. This the Government proposed to do by their commission, which as Parnell had shown cannot report in time for any legislation to take effect before November, 1887. The tenants in the meantime would be lef 1 1 o their fate. Finally, Sir Michael met Paroell's prophecy concerning disturbances if the bill wore rejected, by the distinct intimation that Parliament would, if necessary be summoned together in the winter, and tho Government would ask for fresh powers to deal with crime. It was from John Morluy that Parnell got his most effective support Gladstone's speech was the most disappointing feature of the whole debate. Forcible, as much of it was, he chose to rest a great part of his case on a disputed construction of Lord Salisbury's statement that the House of Lords declined to lend its sanction to anything more that the principle of Parnell's bill. He criticised its details, reserved the right of dealing with the measure in committee, where he well knew it would never appear, and yet Gladstone, in effect, granted Parnoll's contention and refuted many hostile arguments, when he declared that a case had been made out for legislation of some kind, and that tenants required relief to some extent. 1 suspect that Lord Randolph Churchill, who touches public opinion closer than most of his calleagues would have preferred to, cut the ground from under Parnell's feet by such a compromise as would have met most of the urgent and immediate grievances, and deprived the league of a basis tor agitation. Such a compromise would. I believe, have been satisfactory to a majority of tho English people, who wouldhave regarded it as a promise of poacefor thecoming winter. Tlie majority of ninety-five, which threw out Parneli's bill, has given him every political inducement to prove his forbbdings of disaster true. A leading member of the Irish party is reported as saying that the Irish now havo a free hand. The tenants will decide for themselves >% hat rent they can pay, the league will forbid the payment of anything beyond this, the Government will proclaim the league, and the old conflict will once more begin.