NEWS OF THE WEEK.
PRACTICAL questions of social economy have occupied a pro- minent place in the Parliamentary discussions of the week. The newest, and in some respects the most important, is the bill intro- duced by Lord Stanley in the House of Peers, for securing compen- sation to tenants in Ireland on account of improvements which they may effect on land. On making improvements not exceed- ing a certain value per acre, the tenant, if he be evicted, is secured a proportionate compensation, subject to a deduction every succes- sive year, until long occupancy, which is in itself a remuneration, supersedes the claim for a money-payment. The landlord's case is not left out of view' for he is allowed to take credit from his own estate for a term of years for the money paid to the tenant; that is, it may be spread over a certain term as a charge non the estate. There is something -which, to a stranger, looks at once ingenious and practicable in this measure. It was instantly met by some Peers with an outcry of "difficulties." No doubt, there must be difficulties in establishing any new national custom in the relations between landlord and tenant ; which is what the bill aims at doing : but the real lurking cause of dislike seems to be the jealousy of interference which the land- lords feel. Of course, they must incur some disagreeable novelty in effecting the change; but what change of wide and long- subsisting arrangements can be effected without disagreeables ? Out of doors, the measure has been abused for its pettiness ; and a very unfair sneer has been cast at it, as if it were offered as the sole fruit of Lord Devon's Commission, and a panacea for all the ills of Ireland ; though it is expressly promulgated neither as the one nor the other. There is no advantage to any, not even to fac- tious interests, in such barefaced misrepresentations. Were the measure offered as a panacea, it would be simply ridiculous : to cure the ills of Ireland would need a remodelling of society in that unlucky country; and where is the living statesman who could frame—or framing, execute—a newly-modelled scheme of society for a nation of 'seven or eight millions ? Assuredly, Sir Robert Peel is not the man : such is not his vocation, nor that of any among his political competitors. Nor is it quite certain that so total a revolution would be safe or successful. The alternative is, to make a gradual change by a succession of improving mea- sures: such a series must begin somewhere ; and, if over cau- tiously, it does not seem unreasonably begun, in the minor mea- sures which appeal to the religious grievances and economical difficulties of "the millions" in Irelanoi.
The discreditable part of the affair was in Lord Stanley's speech. Incidentally the speech was full of questionable facts and more questionable inferences ; but the " gem " of such orna- ments was a passage in which he exposed his anti-colonial views as Colonial Minister. He was speaking of emigration as a hopeless measure for the effectual relief of Ireland ; and he ventured upon antiquated platitudes which have been ex- ploded for these eight or ten years—ever since colonization be- came a subject of popular inquiry. He talked as if the idea of forming entire colonial communities had never been broached ; as if colonies were of no earthly use in the way of markets as well as vents to the parent country; as if a mere sufferance of emigra- tion, carried on voluntarily by people who would not stay at home, were the only duty of the Government appointed by what has been, in spite of Ministerial perversity, the greatest colonizing country, in the world. Lord Stanley's exposure of the backward state of his opinions—if ,that term may be applied to a crude mass of ignorance, prejudice, and pique—is the greatest libel on his appointment to an important charge in the Administration that has ever been uttered.
The English tenant has not been forgotten. Lord Portman has introduced a bill to give him also compensation for improvements.
The Lord-Advocate's bill to amend the Poor-law of Scotland. has been read a second time; with a judicious and acute critique on its details by Mr. Rutherford. The most important defect which he pointed out is the neglect to regulate the method of assessing the poor-rates ; which is left to its present unsatisfactory and inefficient, not to say deliberately obstructive machinery. Mr. Rutherford suggested rental as a better basis for assess- ment than the "means and substance" imputed to the rate- payer. That mode would obviate many perplexing questions which arise in the case of persons that occupy dwelling- houses or places of business in different parishes. Another need- ful change in the measure is, to take the administration of public charity from the Kirk-Sessions, now that the " disruption" of the Scottish Church has rendered those bodies less than ever fair representatives of the general public. Mr. Rutherfurd suggested. that the bill should be referred to a Select Committee ; a proposal
which was supported by several Members. It was combated, as well as some of the objections to the bill, by the Lord-Advocate and Sir James Graham but in a spirit of candour that ought to encourage Mr. Rutherfiird in trying what can be done to improve the bill by embodying his suggestions in specific amendments. Altogether, the Scotch Poor-law seems likely to be one of those very few things that derive direct advantage from "discussion" in the House of Commons.
The twin measures to regulate banking in Scotland and Ireland have safely run the gauntlet of objection in Committee of the Commons. Members, spurred by local influences, fought hard, but unavailingly. Scotland complains, that the Scotch. bill cramp her circulation, by not permitting the utmost extent of the present amount of paper-issues without any metallic basis, but taking the average of the whole year. Ireland complains, that to make the bullion at head offices' and not at branch banks, the sole basis of paper circulation, and to prohibit notes including frac- tional parts of a pound, (25's. or 35s.,) will cause inconvenience. The, bills, Sir Robert insists, will do more good than harm. And none can resist him. Why is he so resistless in these measures, that come home to men's business and bosoms, when he has been, thwarted in matters of less immediate self-interest? Probably, because in these measures he has no faltering mistrust of his own purpose and plans. On going into Commfttee on the Maynooth College Bill, Lord WharncliTe has made the avowal, remarkable in itself and in its explicitness that he is confidently looking forward to the day when the English people will consent to the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
Mr. Villiers has had his yearly review of the Anti-Corn-law forces in the House of Commons ; without present victory, but with strong signs of increasing strength. On the motion for a Committee of the whole House to inquire into the Corn-laws with a view to immediate repeal, he was beaten by a majority of two to one ; not a division which proves much for the stability of the laws. It is not, however, in the arithmetic of the votes that the real progress is seen, but in the admissions of leading men in Par- liament, on whose practical conduct the advance of opinion is operating a change—gradual, but rapid and decided. Lord John. Russell, who voted against the motion last year, voted for it this time. He still adheres, alone in his glory, to the fixed-duty crotchet : but that is dwindling away in his own mouth as fast as butter—it is only half the size it was last year; • and if he remain in opposition long enough, it will quite go before he becomes a workman in altering the Corn-laws. If not, he will have his fancy, and we shall have a fixed duty stuck between Peel's Act and the total abolition—the harmless folly of a session. Sir James Graham is now, in opinion a thorough 'Free-trader; and so, only more cautious in his words is Sir Robert Peel. Their reasons for not going with Mr. Villiers are curious. Mr. Villiers says that the Corn-laws have -lone harm, and had better be swept away : Sir Robert and Sir James reply, that the Corn-laws have done so much harm—that they have put "vested interests," the "agri- cultural mind," and what not, into such a state of embarrass- ment and perplexity—that the mischief cannot be undone in a moment. In fact, these Ministers condemn the Corn-laws even more than Mr. Villiers does ; but they are more timid in grappling with the disease. So defended, it is evident that the Corn-laws cannot stand a single storm of truly popular clamour : at the next season of high prices, Sir Robert and Sir James will stand by as eagerly as any to cut away all by the board, to prevent the agri- cultural " interests " from causing a thorough wreck : and who knows how soon the squall may strike us ?
