MOTION FOR RETURNS. (Hansard, 10 March 1870)

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

, in moving an Address for Returns touching the relations between Landlords and Tenants in England and Scotland, said, he had hoped it would not be necessary for him to trouble their Lordships with any remarks; but as he feared that his request for those Returns was not to be granted, he should have very shortly to state his reasons for asking them. In "another place," the differences between English and Irish landlords had been much dwelt on. He did not think the differences of opinion existed to the same extent that they had been represented; but if they did, he thought that by the production of the Returns for which he asked, the Irish landlords would have an opportunity of learning how to amend the treatment of their tenants, if in a little time they had any property loft them. He disclaimed any intention to attack by his Motion the English and Scotch landlords—he certainly had no desire that, if an injury was done to Irish landlords, it should extend to the same class in England and Scotland; but, at the same time, he thought the English landlords must wilfully shut their eyes to the facts if they believed that privileges would be granted to the poor tenants in Ireland and refused, in some shape or other, to the industrious farmers of Great Britain. The English and Scotch landlords ought to support him in his Motion, for the reason that the Returns, if obtained now, would be free from bias; whereas, he must say that the tone of the Returns that had been laid before the other House had, in many instances, been determined by the wish that they should suit the provisions of the Bill which Her Majesty's Government had just laid before Parliament. He could hardly believe that any objection, on the score of expense, would be put forward by Her Majesty's Government, for great expense had been freely incurred in procuring Returns, to make out a case against Irish landlords, which they had altogether failed to do. The two allegations most commonly made had completely fallen to the ground—the first, that Irish landlords were guilty of robbing their tenants of the improvements which they made, 1620 having been refuted by the great spokesman of the Irish tenants, Mr. Butt himself, who acknowledged that virtually these improvements had not been made; and the second, that the rents were too high, was disposed of by the fact that Irish land, relatively to its value, was the lowest let land in Europe. Legislation was assumed to be necessary in Ireland, because the incoming tenant had been allowed to deal with the outgoing tenant, and the landlord had not seen exactly what the payments were which passed between them. But this, he believed, was a very common custom both in England and Scotland; and, therefore, if it afforded a basis for legalizing tenant-right in Ireland, sooner or later the same argument would be applied to the rest of the United Kingdom. In fairness and justness to Irish landlords, he hoped the Government would grant these Returns, and so enable the country to judge of their relative positions.

§ EARL GRANVILLE

said, that the Irish Returns to which the noble Lord had alluded were collected at considerable expense and trouble; but Her Majesty's Government thought it well worth while to obtain them even at large cost, being at the time engaged on the preparation of the Bill upon the subject of land which has since been introduced into the other House, and the varied information which those Returns afforded had been placed at the disposal of Parliament. But to propose to incur the same trouble and expense in England would, in the first place, create a certain amount of alarm among the occupiers and landlords here. Her Majesty's Government had not the slightest intention of introducing a similar Bill for England, and they would, therefore, be giving trouble to officers, and incurring expenditure for an object which would 1621 not, in their opinion, justify Her Majesty's Government acceding to the Motion.