opponents only thirty-four, or in a minority of fifty votes. This condition reflected, in an exaggerated form, the state of political feeling when the Parliamentary elections were held, and consequently, in view of another Parliamentary election, which could not be long postponed, the Moderates, who had meanwhile gained two bye-elections, strained every nerve to reverse the County Council vote of 1892. Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Goschen took an active part in the preliminary meetings, and Conservative and Unionist members of Parliament spoke in nearly every district on behalf of the Moderate candidates. The Progressives, either relying on their previous success, or for some less obvious reason, showed far less zeal and steady work, and anticipated the loss of several seats. They were, however, little prepared for the actual results. Of the 118 councillors elected, neither party could claim the majority; the Moderates won twenty-four seats and lost one (West Islington). The fifty-nine Moderates were elected by an aggregate of 289,133 votes, against 268,633 which returned an equal number of Progressives. The defeat of the latter was not limited to the districts inhabited by the rich and well-to-do, but included some of the poorest parishes in London, such as Whitechapel, St. George's in the East, North Hackney, Woolwich, Mile End, and Rotherhithe. The result was a blow to those who had asserted that the policy of the Progressives was endorsed by the "toiling millions of the democratic east and south of London," who would re-elect "the warmest friends they ever had." According to the same authority "the workmen in the workmen's quarters not only deserted their greatest benefactors, but were cruelly indifferent to the most vital and sacred interests of their own children." It did not occur to these guides and former panegyrists of the working classes that possibly the latter understood their own interests. If they did not, it hardly lay in the mouth of those who had for so many years been assuring them of their capacity for self-government to turn round suddenly and to accuse them of selfish and short-sighted indifference.

In addition to the elected councillors, the Board was composed of nineteen aldermen, elected by the councillors for a period of six years, of whom nine retired on the present occasion. Of the remaining ten two were Moderates and eight Progressives, but as aldermen already members of the Council were not entitled to vote for those to be elected to fill vacancies in their body, the preponderating number of the Progressives was of no avail. A compromise was therefore arrived at (Mar. 12) by which the Moderates and the Progressives divided equally eight of the seats, and elected Sir Godfrey Lushington by common consent to the ninth place. In the appointment of the chairmanships a strict party vote secured all three places for the Progressives, Mr. Arthur Arnold being elected chairman by a majority of 9, Mr. Benn vice-chairman by 3, and Mr.

Dickinson, although rejected as a councillor by his constituents in Wandsworth, was appointed deputy chairman, the only paid seats in the Council.

In the House of Commons, the claims of the Welsh members having been met by the introduction of the Church Disestablishment Bill, the Government next proceeded to carry out their promises to their Irish supporters. The Chief Secretary, Mr. John Morley (Newcastle-on-Tyne), moved, in a speech of great clearness and skill, the first reading of the Irish Land Bill (March 4), which proved to be far wider reaching and more complicated than any one had anticipated, and went deeper into the question of the ownership and occupation of land in Ireland than any of his predecessors when attempting to grapple with this thorny subject. He began by observing that from 1816 to 1843 no fewer than thirty-two Acts of Parliament on the subject had been passed, but every one of them gave additional facilities to the landlords, while it never entered into the mind of the Legislature to make any provision for the tenants. The vast increase in the amount of crime in Ireland was, according to O'Connell, directly traceable to the legislation of the Imperial Parliament. It was no wonder, therefore, that the House should have been invited time after time to unravel a web so tangled. The first great step was taken in 1870, when an act was passed which provided that if a landlord evicted a tenant he should pay him compensation, not only for his improvements, but also for disturbance. That statute, indeed, contained the principle from which all that had been done since was deduced. It was followed by the act of 1881, which was the charter of the Irish tenants' rights and privileges. The gross amount of rental dealt with under all the fair-rent provisions of the acts between 1881 and 1894 was 6,140,600, and the reduction by various methods and provisions of those acts was 1,280,000, while the expense of the Land Commission in fixing fair rents from 1881 to 1894 was no less than 1,040,0007. Mr. Morley then went on to state the circumstances which led him to ask the leave of the House to amend the act of 1881. In the autumn it would be open to those tenants who had had their rents fixed for fourteen years to come into court to have them fixed for another term, and the question was whether the act of 1881 should be left exactly as it stood. Most, though not all, of the proposals in the present measure were based on the recommendations of the committee appointed last year, and he contended that the report of that committee represented the opinions of important sections of society in Ireland. The foundation of those proposals was a broad principle of social policy, because the general principle of protecting tenants in the ownership of their improvements, which was a sound and wise rule in all countries, was in Ireland absolutely indispensable. It was clear that, broadly speaking, no more improvements would be made by the landlords, and conse

quently Parliament was bound to do all it could to guarantee to the tenants the advantages of the labour, energy, and money that they had expended on the improvement of their holdings. He referred at some length to the judicial decision in the famous case of "Adams v. Dunseath," one result of which was that the tenant's right to claim exemption from rent in respect of his improvements was held to be co-extensive and co-ordinate with the compensation granted under the act of 1870. This decision swept vast categories of improvements into the rent net, and there were now large classes of improvements on which the tenant was obliged to pay rent. This, the House must admit, was a very astonishing result, and certainly it was one which was not contemplated when the act of 1881 was passed. Accordingly, the present bill provided that all improvements effected on a holding since 1850 should be presumed to have been made by the tenant, unless the contrary were proved. Further, it was provided that neither a contract by a tenant not to claim compensation for improvements made by him, nor anything else in the fourth clause of the act of 1870, should authorise the allowance of rent in respect of any improvement. Mr. Morley said that what the Government proposed to do by the improvement clauses was, first, to impose a duty on the court of ascertaining whether any improvements, as claimed, had been made, and to record such improvements; they proposed, secondly, that that record should be primâ facie evidence on the future fixing of the fair rent; thirdly, they defined what was an improvement within the meaning of the act; fourthly, they assured the adequate and ample indemnification of the tenant for his outlay, his labour, and his energy, and they assured to him, further, so much of the increased letting value as was produced by his improvements; and, fifthly, they directed the court to be mindful of the right of the tenant to continued occupation of the holding. Of course it was laid down in these clauses that the compensation must be definite and tangibleeither money or money's worth. In connection with the statutory term three points arose, and were dealt with in the bill. It was made clear that at the end of the statutory term the rent payable should be the judicial rent previously fixed, and that the holding should continue to be subject to the statutory conditions until a new rent had been fixed, and the statutory conditions thereby removed. With regard to the abridgment of the statutory term, her Majesty's Government had come to the conclusion that ten years was a fair limit to allow. They also proposed to the House that this abridgment of the statutory term should apply to terms now current. As they regarded the landlord's right of pre-emption as a check on improvements, they intended to repeal so much of the act of 1881 as related to that subject, and on this point the Chief Secretary remarked that in practice the right of pre-emption was not greatly valued or resorted to by the landlords. A most im

portant provision in the bill was that, where a present tenancy had degenerated into a future tenancy, the tenant, if he had for five years discharged all the obligations incident to such a tenancy, should at the end of that period be deemed to be a present tenant once more, and to possess all the rights of a present tenant. He next dealt in considerable detail with the exclusions which had had the effect of shutting out considerable bodies of tenants from coming into the fair rent courts; and in this connection he explained the sections of the bill relating to town-parks, demesne lands, pastures, sub-letting, and mill holdings. He also described a proposal, which, however, was not in the bill, for a semi-automatic fixing of judicial rents, recommending it to the favourable consideration of the Irish members. Passing on to the question of the evicted tenants, he admitted. that his proposals of last year were in his belief demanded by considerations of administrative urgency. He then told the House that a mere re-enactment of the thirteenth section of the act of 1891 would be inadequate, whereas he now came forward to propose with some unimportant modifications the re-enactment of that clause. The rejection of last year's bill had not indeed been followed by the administrative troubles which he anticipated, but this happy result was due to the fact that the Irish representatives had unexpectedly been able to relieve the necessities of the evicted tenants. As the Irish landlords in the House of Peers appeared to be still in a hardened and an impenitent frame of mind, the Government determined to take them at their word, and to submit a proposal which their lordships declared to be adequate. Hitherto the great obstacle in the way of voluntary agreements was the difficulty of getting the landlord and the tenant together, and it was accordingly provided in the present bill that either party might put the Land Commission in motion. In conclusion, he appealed to all sober and responsible men to give a fair consideration to these proposals, and not to lightly or passionately fling away an opportunity of placing on the Statute Book a just and politic scheme.

Although it was impossible to speak at once on the effects of so complicated a measure, the general tone of the discussion which followed showed that it was regarded as far less revolutionary in its aim than the more advanced Nationalists had been promising to their fellow-countrymen. On behalf of the front Opposition bench, Mr. Carson (Dublin University) merely complained that the committee to inquire into the Irish Land Acts, on whose report this bill was principally based, had only examined official witnesses. It would, however, be the duty of the Opposition to consider the proposals of the Government most carefully on their merits. He acknowledged that some of the sections of the act of 1881 required amendment, but he was unable to pledge himself to any of the proposals of the Government until he had seen the bill in print. At present he

would only say that some of them appeared to be enormous advances on the act of 1881, and to be subversive of the principles of that statute. He would resist any attempt to confiscate the property of the landlords, but was quite willing to amend the act of 1881 if the present bill, on closer examination, should prove to be a fair one.

The Parnellite spokesman was Mr. J. Clancy (Dublin Co., N.), who declined, in the absence of the text of the bill, to pronounce a definite opinion with regard to it, though he had no hesitation in declaring at once that the re-enactment of the thirteenth clause of the act of 1891, in view of the restoration of evicted tenants, was a sham and a mockery. In his judgment the ultimate solution of the Irish land problem lay in the total abolition of landlordism.

He was followed by the Ulster members Mr. Rentoul (Downshire, E.), who hoped the bill would pass, and Mr. Macartney (Antrim, S.), who promised to give the fullest consideration to the proposals of the Government, although at the first blush some of them seemed to savour of prairie value.

Mr. T. W. Russell (Tyrone, S.), speaking more especially for the tenant farmers, considered that the act of 1881 had miscarried in consequence of the judicial decision in the case of " Adams v. Dunseath," and that the first duty of any Government was to divorce that statute from the Land Act of 1870. The Chief Secretary, in dealing with this matter, had acted perfectly right, and had taken nothing away from any landlord which that landlord could properly claim. With regard to the evicted tenants, he rejoiced to see that the Chief Secretary and hon. members opposite had been able to agree on a clause which he thought the House would feel little difficulty in sanctioning. Speaking for the great mass of Protestant tenants in Ulster, he believed that, apart from technicalities, this bill in spirit and in fact was a good, a satisfactory, and an honest measure. Finally, Colonel Saunderson (Armagh, N.), speaking from another and usually opposing point of view, thought the bill might pass through this House without much opposition if the Chief Secretary consented to make certain alterations which would not cost him very dear. On the part of the Irish landlords he asserted most distinctly that they were unwilling to receive extra rent on account of the money laid out on improvements by their tenants. As far as the bill meant fair play to the tenants it would receive the cordial support of the landlords, but if it should be found that it struck a blow at the foundation of property in Ireland they would stoutly oppose it.

The motion was then agreed to, and the bill read a first time.

Before the House rose the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Bryce (Aberdeen, S.), was able to explain briefly his bill to make better provision for the settlement of trade disputes.