On Monday Mr. Morley began the debate on the second
reading of the Irish Land Bill with a clever but rather captious speech, in which the speaker seemed more anxious to " score off" the Government than to make helpful suggestions. His best point was an appeal to the Chief Secretary in favour of lucidity. Professor Richey had given good advice when he said that the Irish land-laws ought to be consolidated into an Act drawn in such a way that reasonably educated land- lords and tenants could understand what were their respec- tive rights and duties. Mr. T. Healy made a very curious speech. He was not one of those who described the Bill as a ." fraud or a humbug "—a hit at Mr. Dillon—but at the same time it fell very short of what it ought to be. As to the compensation for improvements he contended that the pre- sumption as regards all improvements should be that they had been made by the tenant, and that there should be no limit of time. This would not injure the landlord, as Sub-sections 5 and 6, which he was willing to allow to stand, would protect him from injury if it should appear to the Court that in fact the improvements were not made by the tenant or his pre- decessors in title. An important admission made by Mr. Healy was that the Bill, with the exception of the improve• meats clause, was " a very well-drafted measure."
Previous page
