THE EVICTED TENANTS BILL.

Timaru Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 6062, 22 September 1894, Page 4

THE EVICTE D TENA NTS BILL.

~ €f Tue leiduut London newspaper, now a dye give double >eports of Parliamentary proceedings, one giving the words of tho speakers m full or condensed, ths other, by other hands, dealing with the debates picturesquely. The following ia a sample of the latter, m the Westminster Qazeite, con* oerniog one of the liveliest debates of the session— on the teojnd raidipg of the Evioted Tenants Bill :— The chief interest arose from a display of divided counsels m tbe Opposition camp. Mr Chamberlain's speech was a very able and searching piece/?, analytical criticism, such as he has bronght to bear on eaoh of the Government'- Bills m turn. Every big measure of reform, introduced into a delioate and oomplex sooial. fabric, oarries with it, abrg with ita beneficial effects, certain dangers of disintegration. It is always into these that Mr Chamberlain sets his teeth: As we noted on the oocaeion of bis Home Bule speeobes, Mr Chamberlain's oratory is one long 0.-y of ' Fire !' He always ' wants to mske your flesh oreep.' Under the foroe of his training, Mr Chamberlain is rapidly becoming a purely critical and negative foroe m polities, and a mind that has m its time shown great constructive power is losing its gsip of p.sitive faots. Is it the effeot of so long an absence from Ministerial rack ? He began with tbe date. ' Why m 1879 ?' According to the Parnell Commission there were 18,000 eviotions from 1879 up to 1888, and there hsve been many sinoe — ' there have been 1400,' be added nastily, 'under Mr Morley.' How then could Mr Morley say that the Bill only effected 5000 persons P 'If tbis is true, what exag geration thsre hss been m this Irish controversy i Why, only 1 per pent of the tenants have been evicted I— not so many as man English village 1' And then, what danger m reinstating these tenants ! What envies among those who were aot put back - what encouragement to dishonesty — what trouble with the tenants m possession— what a reward for that 'illegal combination' the Plan of Campaign— what, a bad lesson to tbe tenants of ths state under the Purohase Acts I What a precedent for years to oome! These tenants may be evicted again, or others may be evicted, and then what will happen ? They will all oonsider that they have a right to be reinstated ! And so on — through all the gamut of terror and fear, playing on the feelings of the cautious, dissooting the terms of the Bill, and earning the oheers of the Tories, with a prudent eye on a possible need of a loophole for the future. Scarcely had Mr Chamberlain sat down when Mr Healy wae on him, m bis most tip- idh fashion, open book m hand. ' You deoouoce this Bill as dishonest, and yet you drew up and passed a stronger Bill m 1882 — tbe Arrears Act! lt gave everything that this Bill gives, and more generously com. pulsion, reinstatement of the evicted, and further, Imperial liability. And it was drafted by you the morning after the Kilmainham Trea'y ! This Bill, yon Bay, encourages the Plan of Campaign ; but that Bill encouraged a far worse thing— the do rent manifesto! You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel ! It was v vigorous and powerful attack, delivered with a vehement viciouiness which carried the Irishmen out of their senses witb joy. Mr Chamberlain made ne attempt to reply, nnd took it, it must be confessed, m very good temper. In faot, be seemed amused, and gave no encouragement to the Tories, who began to pepper Mr Healy with questions -questions always skilfully and sue cessfully turned aside. 'Wby,' asked Mr Healy finally, ' wby does every settlement of an Irish problem result m a new grievance ? Because,' he cried ' you settle them bo badly. You never pass an Act with leaving a loophole- Yon allow your commissions and judges to destroy your handicraft.; and he ended impressively with a peroration calling on tbe House to remember the ps.r, to give generously what would have to he given m the end— and to , strike away tho plank under the agitator.' The debate was kept up to a high level through the evening, Mr T W Bussell announced his polioy m a difficult oration, carefully trimming between the Tory tJoylla and the Liberal Oharybdie. He could not vote'f or the Bill because it was compulsory and pauperising— ' it is an evictiog Bill.' Mr Buß.el.'s own soheme simply amounted to an extension of the Land Purohase Aot. , using the money not as a means of help, but as a seourity. But the most remarkable point io his speech was his offer— to whioh we sincerely bope, if only for the honour of the thin;, that Mr Healy will tie him Mr Healy had quoted Mr Russell's old remark that Lord Clf.nrics.de ought to be expropriated. ' I still' agree to that,' oritd Mr Bussell, ' and if Mr Healy likes to bring m a Bill for tho expropriation of Lord Olanrioarde he een put my name on the baok of the Bill.' A little later Mr Dillon oome m with an eloquent appeal— ' Do not eaori_.ee 5000 peasantry to the mere desire of annoying us Jri_h members ' — and after a trying interlude of Sir Ashmead Bar let t, Mr Balf .ur W mod up the oase for bis side by a vigorous running fight with the Irish member. , quite m the old style. It tomed ronnd pompiio.te t p 'inf.. m the Acts of 1881 and 1887 and w.s not a ver; edifying proceeding— nut without a r. . . m* biases to the quarrels of a petty cou't. ' Will it be believed,' says Mr Balfour, '.Hut Mr Healy was deliberately deceiving yon ? Will it be believed that the Aot gay a otherwise ?' •Nonsense,' 'The hon m mber eon'rad'et. me. I give wt»y. let him gn chapter and verse.' *Lo you refer to seotion 13 nf the - '881 AotP It hos' never been u° d.' * Then why >notP We ein only give y..u th* toi*; we oannot miik* use of thr-m." A pimiUr running figlK, yet mi.o diffioult to f>llow went on betwem Mr b.'lfaar aad Mr O'Brien. The effect wsb a »omewha. .orappy acd ineffective speech, sHriUd by .hnts from Mr Healy, n-w t'*.r.iunh!y n cry Pi.i* in.tanoe: 1 Y_u spe^k uf hard case.-;- are. tlie.e toi hard, eviotions io Fughnri P' Mr Hea'y : ' Out of their own houses ?'•*-* (Ohssrs.)' lam surprised at those obeers. Have we not done our utmost to give tbe Irish tenant every improvement ?' The irrepressible Mr Healy : ' Ask Bussell.' After ail it was impossible to add much to these running rejoinders. Mr Balfour was much too long, but' he ended on a very vigorous and denunciatory note. ' I objeot to thie Bill because we are asked to become fellow-conspirators with members belorv the gangway— to help them m an illegal and futile conspiracy .' Mr Morley was left only a quarter of an hour. -He made the best of it. A racing speech oan never be very artistic, tbe arguments have to be paoked too closely, and there is no room for the play of elbow. His bes. point was bis remark to Mr Carson : ' I hope you will oot join those who think tbey o.d make a small point big' by speakiog very lou J. But the House nse Ured and restless, and caught little more than the gist of Mr Morle . 's defiance j' We shell not be afriid to face our constituents, whatever mey happen m another plaoe !' Finally oame the division, close on twelve o'olook.. The result was a rather sm. Her majority than bad beeu expeoted— 2s9 to 287-32.