THE LAND BILL IN TEE LORDS.
THE first two days of debate in the Lords on the Land Bill have disappointed us. That the Bill must be accepted we understood, for Peers are not the kind of persons who can profit by anarchy ; and as it had to be accepted, it was nearly certain that it would be accepted without waste of power in sterile opposition or useless divisions. But we thought the tone of the discussion would have risen a little higher, that *nen so familiar with politics would have bothered themselves less with considerations of property, that the chiefs of parties at any rate would have tried to estimate publicly the social effect of the proposed legislation, to make -the public comprehend it from the point of view of the statesman who tries to remodel society or oppose its remodelling. Instead of this, the discussion, though fell of practical points, has been rather smaller in scope
than it was in the Commons, and decidedly smaller than it has been in the Press. Lord Salisbury elevated it for a moment when he pointed out that the effect of Mr. Bright's clauses, if they succeeded, would be to bring an army of small proprietors to the aid of the larger landowners —a great truth, about which we are perhaps destined to hear much more—and so did Earl Russell in his historical perora- tion, asserting that Mr. Gladstone had done what Lord Burghley desired to do. Lord Derby, too, based his speech upon the Bill—a speech full of the Conservatism which Lord Stanley always betrayed in the Commons upon questions affecting property—upon the propriety or impropriety of maintaining a small tenant-class as the great class of agriculturists; while the Duke of Argyll referred for a moment to one of the broadest aspects of the whole matter, the English impression as to the possibility of Celtic improvement. But the general tone of the debate was humdrum to weariness. The Peers talked as farmers talk of tenure, with great wealth of know- ledge, but with no capacity, or rather no inclination, to look at the matter from the ruler's point of view. The Mar- quis of Salisbury seemed chiefly shocked by the fine upon eviction, holding that its principle might be ex- tended until a dockyard labourer could not be dismissed without compensation. Neither could he, if history gave him a claim to permanent employment, as the Government contend it does to the Irish tenant, whose true analogue is not the dockyard navvy, but the commissioned officer, who, by statute and written contract, may be dis- missed without reason assigned, but by prescription has a quasi-property right in his pay. Lord Cairns seemed most distressed about the vagueness of the obligations thrown on the Judges, about the absence of definition as to the meaning of disturbance or capricious eviction, and about a host of other small difficulties, many of which he could himself remove if he pleased. The Duke of Richmond held that the Bill was subversive of the rights of property, but as Irish landlords approved it he would suffer it to pass—would, that is, condone theft, if the robbed declined to prosecute— while the Duke of Abercorn was mainly concerned about Ulster tenant-right. All that was said was more or less sensible, and we have no doubt that the keen lawyers who are watching the Bill from both sides may gather from the speeches hints for its improvement ; but the country, which wants to know what the great landlords think the Bill will secure or fail to secure, will find itself but little more enlightened than it was when the measure left the Commons. The public only see that the Lords do not intend to resist the Bill ; that the Duke of Richmond, the recognized mouthpiece of the Opposition, considers that he "ought" to support the Bill ; that "as the Irish landlords and Irish people are anxious it should pass, the Peers must not incur the odium of rejecting it ;" that Lord Salisbury, recognised chief of the independent Tories, declares the Bill to be full of points, "white, black, and grey," and believes Government to be sincere ; and that Lord Derby, chief of moderate Tories, thinks the ultimate result will be the substitution of the English for the Irish system of farming. Naturally their general conclusion will be, that if these natural opponents of a liberal government, these heirs of immense possessions, these nobles to whom property in land is of such vital importance, can accede to the Bill, it cannot at all events be dangerous, and, as Mr. Glad- stone says it will be beneficial, it had better pass. The total result of the discussion will, we venture to say, be a diminu- tion of confidence in the reviewing capacity of the Lords, an increase of confidence in Mr. Gladstone's judgment upon very great measures, and a general resolve not to be quite so much frightened by the next Revolutionary Bill.
Previous page
