=Source.=--Morley’s _Life of Gladstone_, vol. ii., pp. 293, 294.
(Macmillan and Co.)
Public opinion was ripening. The _Times_ made a contribution of the
first importance to the discussion, in a series of letters from a
correspondent, that almost for the first time brought the facts of
Irish land before the general public. A pamphlet from Mill, then at
the height of his influence, upon both writers and readers, startled
them by the daring proposition, that the only plan was to buy out the
landlords. The whole host of Whig economists and lawyers fell heavily
upon him in consequence. The new voters showed that they were not
afraid of new ideas. It was not until January 25 that peril was at an
end inside the Government.
_January 25, 1870._--Cabinet. The great difficulties of the Irish Land
Bill THERE are now over. Thank God!
_February 7._--With the Prince of Wales 3¼–4¼ explaining to him the
Land Bill and other matters. He has certainly much natural intelligence.
_February 15._--Introduced the Irish Land Bill in a speech of 3¼ hours.
Well received by the House at large.
The policy of the Bill as tersely explained by Mr. Gladstone in a
letter to Manning was “to prevent the landlord from using the terrible
weapon of undue and unjust eviction by so framing the handle that it
shall cut his hands with the sharp edge of pecuniary damages. The man
evicted without any fault, and suffering the usual loss by it, will
receive whatever the custom of the country gives, and where there is
no custom, according to a scale, besides whatever he can claim for
permanent buildings or reclamation of land. Wanton eviction will,
as I hope, be extinguished by provisions like these. And if they
extinguish wanton eviction, they will also extinguish those demands
for _unjust_ augmentations of rent, which are only formidable to
the occupier, because the power of wanton or arbitrary eviction is
behind them.” What seems so simple, and what was so necessary, marked
in truth a vast revolutionary stride. It transferred to the tenant
a portion of the absolute ownership, and gave him something like an
estate in his holding. The statute contained a whole code of minor
provisions, including the extension of Mr. Bright’s clauses for peasant
proprietorship in the Church Act; but this transfer was what gave the
Act its place in solid legal form. The second reading was carried
by 442 to 11, the minority being composed of eight Irish members of
advanced type and three English Tories. The Bill was at no point fought
high by the Opposition. Mr. Disraeli moved an amendment, limiting
compensation to unexhausted improvements. The Government majority fell
to 76, “a result to be expected,” Mr. Gladstone reports, “considering
the natural leanings of English and Scotch members to discount in
Ireland what they would not apply in Great Britain. They are not very
familiar with land tenures.” One fact of much significance he notes in
these historic proceedings. “Disraeli,” he writes to the Duke of Argyll
(April 21, 1870), “has not spoken one word against valuation of rents
or perpetuity of tenure.” It was from the House of his friends that
danger came.
_April 4._--H. of C. Spoke on Disraeli’s amendment. A majority of 76,
but the navigation is at present extremely critical.
_April 7._--H. of C. A most ominous day from end to end. Early in the
evening I gave a review of the state of the Bill, and later another
menace of overturn if the motion of Mr. W. Fowler [a Liberal banker]
should be carried. We had a majority of only 32.
To Lord Russell he writes (April 12):
“I am in the hurry-scurry of preparation for a run into the country,
but I must not omit to thank you for your kind and welcome letter. We
have had a most anxious time in regard to the Irish Land Bill. The fear
that our Land Bill may cross the water creates a sensitive state of
mind among all Tories, many Whigs, and a few Radicals.”
Phillimore records a visit in these critical days:
_April 8._--Gladstone looked worn and fagged. Very affectionate and
confidential, Gladstone feels keenly the want of support in debate.
Bright ill. Lowe no moral weight. “I feel when I have spoken, that I
have not a shot in my locker.”
As a very accomplished journalist of the day wrote, there was
something almost painful in the strange phenomenon of a Prime Minister
fighting as it were all but single-handed the details of his own
great measure through the ambuscades and charges of a numerous and
restless enemy--and of an enemy determined apparently to fritter away
the principle of the measure under the pretence of modifying its
details. “No Prime Minister has ever attempted any task like it--a
task involving the most elaborate departmental readiness, in addition
to the general duties and fatigues of a Prime Minister, and that too
in a session when questions are showered like hail upon the Treasury
bench.”[A] Then the Government put on pressure and the majority sprang
up to eighty.
The debate in the Commons lasted over three and a half months; or about
a fortnight longer than had been taken by the Church Bill. The third
reading was carried without a division. In the Lords the Bill was read
a second time without a division. Few persons clearly foresaw that it
was the first step of a vast transfer of property, and that in a few
years it would become customary for Ministers of the Crown to base all
their legislation on the doctrine that Irish land is not an undivided
ownership, but a simple partnership.[B]
[A] _Spectator._
[B] Lecky, _Democracy and Liberty_, vol. i., p. 165.