that my hon. friends who represent the popular party in Ireland have so often, even with cheerfulness, acquiesced in our declining to accede to what we felt to be extreme demands-demands which they knew the people of Great Britain would never have agreed to. Excesses we have endeavoured to avoid; but it would be idle, it would be conferring no benefit upon any one; it would be fatal to our own character; it would be injurious to the reputation of Parliament, it would be hostile to the interests of the Irish landlord, were we to attempt to induce Parliament to pass an ineffectual measure. Of course, we may have erred in our attempts to realize that just moderation of view which lies between violence on the one hand, and feebleness on the other; but we have not erred from want of upright intention or of studied labour. The aid we have received from the House, bestowed with such unexampled care and patience, and with so much intelligence, knowledge, and ability, has, I confidently think, setting aside those minor touches which in every work of art, law, or industry, may always be applied with advantage to bring such works to perfection, brought this measure to a state in which, if it be allowed to take its place in the statute book, it will redound to the honour of Parliament and the benefit and security of the Empire."

Lord Granville, on moving the second reading in the House of Lords, recapitulated the attempts made at previous legislation, and described the scope and objects of the present measure.

The Duke of Richmond, in declaring his intention to move certain moderate amendments, wished to lower the length of lease, which would exempt the landlord from the operation of the Bill, from thirty-one to twenty-one years, and to fix a time after the lapse of which no compensation for tenant's improvements should be made. The landlord and tenant should have the power of settling matters without going into court, and the awards made by the Judge of the Civil Bill Courts should have upon the face of them the particulars he should decide. The clause was to be thrown out which limited distress for rent to persons who had contracted to allow it.

Lord Salisbury, approving of the creation of a peasant proprietary, of compensation for improvements, and of the recognition of clear and tangible customs, disapproved of any limitation of free contracts, and especially of damages for eviction. The Bill contained, as it appeared to him, "points white, grey, and black"- things which he admired exceedingly, things the intention of which he respected, but the means of which he distrusted, and things which he must condemn with his whole heart.

Lord Cairns criticized the Bill in detail; and

Lord Derby, endorsing the objections that Lord Cairns made, strongly attacked that part of the Bill which referred to disturbance of holdings, and argued that its results would be the expulsion of small tenants, not the retaining of their holdings; not that he regarded that as an unmixed evil. "I will venture to say,"

he said, "that what is most satisfactory in the measure is that-not so much by what it says as by what it does not say it practically involves a denial of that curious and fantastic delusion, which appears to have taken hold of some of the agricultural body in Ireland—that, in some vague unexplained way, the land belongs of right, or ought to belong to those who live on it-a claim which is about as reasonable as that of the cook who should assert his right to eat the dinner he has prepared, or the bricklayer to live in the house he has built. That delusion will be finally negatived by this Bill. I am very glad of it; and if any doubt mingles with the satisfaction which I should otherwise feel on the subject, it is only that I hope that those who have introduced this Bill as a final measure will have the courage to stick to it as final. I do not like to be a prophet of evil; but I do ask the House not to indulge the delusion that because this Bill, if it passes as it stands, will give a certain degree of satisfaction to a certain class in Ireland, therefore you will see an end of agitation in that country. I am afraid that the trade of dilating upon the grievances of Ireland is far too profitable to be so easily abandoned. I ask you whether the Irish Church would not now have probably been still on its legs but for the Fenian agitation? I will also ask whether this Bill, in its present form, would have been likely to pass through both Houses of Parliament, if it had not been for long-continued agitation, supported by many most unjustifiable acts of violence? It is an unpleasant truth, I know; but it is the truth, and I name it for that reason that I do not think we can reasonably expect people to give up playing a game which has hitherto been so eminently successful..... For the poverty and discontent existing in Ireland there is only one real remedy-the gradual reduction of holdings; and in the nature of the case that must necessarily be the work of time."

Lord Lurgan said that the legalization of the Ulster custom would no more hurt Ulster landlords than the legalization of their debts of honour.

Lord Dunsany held that the Bill was "a very great though perhaps necessary evil," as it invaded property, tenants being permitted to put up improvements without the landlord's consent, and landlords forbidden to enter on their own farms without paying a premium.

Lord Greville supported the Bill, which he thought had been rendered necessary mainly by the harshness of the novi homines; and Lord Leitrim objected to "every part of it, from the title downwards," and wanted all cases under it tried by Quarter Sessions. "The clause about notice to quit," he said, "was contrary to the Act of Union."

The Earl of Clancarty denounced the Bill as one of pains and penalties against the landlords of Ireland.

Lord Portarlington supported it, ascribing land wrongs, however, chiefly to the disappearance of old families; and

Lord Lansdowne said, in reference to "freedom of contract," that, if the enactments of the Bill were fit to be enforced, a contract violating the Bill ought not to be supported.

The Earl of Carnarvon supported the Bill as an experiment which might do good in an exceptional state of affairs, though he thought it full of retrograde details, such as the stereotyping of tenant right and the interference with freedom of

contract.

The Lord Chancellor said that the important points of the Bill were, "first, the Ulster tenant-right and the making that custom a legal and binding contract between the parties; secondly, the clause which gives to the tenant certain compensation over and beyond the actual value of his improvements; thirdly, those clauses defining what are improvements; fourthly, the making the payment for them retrospective; fifthly, the presumption as to those improvements; and, sixthly, the forbidding certain contracts;" and proceeded to defend such arrangements as he thought threatened with attack.

The Bill was upon this read a second time. As in the Commons, so in the House of Lords, the battle was fought in Committee. There it soon became clear that the Conservative Peers were neither willing nor ready to accept the principles of the Bill; and amendments were at once proposed and carried which struck at the root of it.

The Duke of Richmond proposed to reduce the scale of compensation for eviction, by providing that the highest scale, seven years' rent, should be given in the case of holdings valued at and under 47. instead of 107.; that in cases where the valuation was above 107. and under 207. the compensation should not exceed five years' rent; and that in cases where the valuation was above 207. and under 407. it should not exceed four years' rent.

This amendment was carried by 92 votes to 71; and further amendments proposed by the Duke were also carried by varying majorities. One denied compensation to an assignee not approved by the landlord; another forbade tenants to let gardens to their labourers under penalty of losing the protection of the Act; and a fourth reduced the lease which was to exempt landlords from the Act, from thirty-one to twenty-one years. But the gravest of all the amendments was proposed and carried through by Lord Salisbury, who on this point separated himself from the Duke of Richmond (who voted against the amendment), and obtained a majority of 18. Under this amendment 507. instead of 100%. was fixed as the rental above which no tenant was to be entitled to compensation for eviction; and in moving it

Lord Salisbury characterized the provision he attacked as "the most detestable legislation he had seen for many years;" adding that "the course which he should have wished to take, if he could have hoped to carry a majority with him, was to strike out this part of the clause altogether."

Lord Clanricarde moved, with reference to the provision that all improvements were to be prima facie presumed to have been made by the tenants, an amendment," the object of which was," he said, "to alter the whole scope of the clause." By this amendment, which was carried, the presumption was removed, and it was provided that all claims for improvements put forward either by landlord or tenant should be proved by evidence. The House of Lords also prohibited letting in con-acre, abolished (with the assent of Government) the authority of juries as to matters of fact, and reduced the needful notice to quit from twelve months to six. On the Report being brought up, however, the great majority of these votes, which threatened a most serious collision between the two Houses-as it would have been impossible for the Government to accept them, or for the Lords, the challenge once given and accepted, to draw back with dignity or safety-was on re-consideration reversed; Lord Granville offering various compromises. Lord Salisbury's amendment was expunged, though he defended it to a division, and the grade of the tenants entitled to compensation was restored from £50 to £100. The amendment prohibiting the tenant from letting in con-acre was cancelled, by allowing such letting unless prohibited in writing. The refusal to allow the Courts to presume that improvements belonged to the tenant was given up, the Duke of Richmond accepting the presumption, except in six cases to be specified by Government; and the amendment allowing the landlord to refuse compensation to an assignee was withdrawn, in favour of another giving the compensation, unless the Court should think the landlord had reasonable grounds for refusing his assent. Only two amendments of gravity were, therefore, presented by the Lords to the Commons-the reduction carried by the Duke of Richmond in the general scale of compensation, and the reduction from 31 to 21 years of the duration of lease excepting landlords from the operations of the Bill. These the Government asked the Lords to re-consider, confining also the permissive registration of improvements to landlord and tenant when acting in concert, and taking it away from either of them when acting separately. With these three exceptions, they agreed to the Lords' amendments, and after further discussion in both Houses, and with modifications of no serious character (the Lords carrying in a modified form the point which in reality most closely touched them, and securing to the landlord, under certain circumstances, a voice in connexion with the tenant's right to assign), the Irish Land Bill, one of the most remarkable and original pieces of legislation in the Statute Book, received the Royal Assent on the 1st of August; almost unnoted of men whose minds were occupied with the great war that had burst upon Europe but a fortnight before. The immediate effect of the Irish legislation of this great session, whether chiefly to be attributed to the Land Act or the Peace Preservation Act is a question into which we need not too closely enquire, was the appearance of favourable symp

E

toms in regard to the reign of law and order in Ireland during the latter part of the year. Loud expressions of sympathy with the French cause served as an outlet for Irish feeling, which, however, cannot be said to have assumed a form very expressive of any newborn loyalty to the Crown, or gratitude for benefits received. But Mr. Gladstone felt himself justified in closing the year with the grant of an amnesty to the Fenian prisoners still detained at Portlandcoupled, however, with the condition of banishment from the United Kingdom for life, without distinction of persons—a limitation which, in the opinion of some, was a very wise and righteous measure, in that of others, including many even among moderate Liberals, an ungenerous mistake, which deprived the amnesty both of grace and wisdom, looking especially to the disturbing and dangerous element to England which would thereby be introduced into the United States at a dangerous time. But with this amnesty, whether to work for good or for evil, closed Ireland's memorable share in the story of a memorable year.

CHAPTER III.

The Elementary Education Act-Its Objects-Previous condition of Schools under Government control-Mr. Forster introduces the new Act-His speech-Remarks of Sir J. Pakington-Opposition to the Bill-Amendment of Mr. Dixon on the second reading-Debate upon it-Speeches of Mr. Forster, Mr. Winterbotham, Sir Roundell Palmer, and others-Bill read for the second time-The Bill goes into Committee New proposals of the Government-Amendment of Mr. CowperTemple accepted-Debate on Mr. Richard's Amendment-Speeches of Dr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Forster, Mr. Gladstone, and others-Principles established by the Debate-Division on the Amendment-Large majorities for Government-Alteration made in Committee-Discontent of the Nonconformists and Secularists-The Ballot Question-Attack on the Government by Mr. Dixon and Mr. Miall--Mr. Gladstone's reply-Speech of Lord Shaftesbury in the House of Lords-The Bill passes Subsequent vote of censure on Mr. Forster at Bradford-The first elections for the School Boards.

Seldom has a great measure been received on the whole with such general welcome and favour in Parliament and the country, as the Elementary Education Act of 1870, which was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Forster on the 17th of February, two days after the Irish Land Bill, in a speech which is not easily to be surpassed in strength and lucidity of expression or in mastery of detail. The object of this Act, which did not extend to Scotland or Ireland, was to secure throughout England and Wales the provision of accommodation and appliances for the elementary education of the people, adequate both in quantity and quality; an object which