LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDONasked the Lord Privy Seal, Whether, in the return of evictions for the year ending 31st December 1881, the number of families and persons stated to have been re-admitted as tenants was not confined to those cases where the persons evicted were re-admitted at the time of the eviction; if so, whether a supplementary return could be furnished showing the number of those evicted during the first three quarters of the year 1881 who were re-admitted as tenants before the 31st of March 1882? He said that the Returns recently presented were ambiguous in not distinguishing the number of tenants who were reinstated at the time of the eviction and those who were reinstated before the six months had expired during which they had the right of redemption. The number of those reinstated as tenants appeared to be very small, whereas the number of those who went back as caretakers was comparatively large. He wished to know whether the Return which had been issued included those who had taken advantage of the equity of redemption they possessed and been readmitted within six months, or whether it did not? If it did not, he desired to know whether there was any objection to a supplementary return up to the 31st of March last being issued which would include such cases?
§ LORD CARLINGFORD,in reply, said, he found on inquiry that the Return included all cases where the tenant had been re-admitted up to the date when the report of the eviction had been made to head-quarters in Dublin. But he believed that in point of fact the Return was confined to those cases where persons evicted had been re-admitted at the time of the eviction, and therefore he had no objection to a supplementary Return being made as the noble Lord desired.
LORD ORANMORE and BROWNEsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord 1638 (Lord Monteagle of Brandon) that these Returns were most ambiguous, and he took that opportunity to refer to the unfair and injurious statements with regard to evictions which appeared in the newspapers from time to time. A noble Lord, a friend of his, saw in the papers that he had evicted 60 tenants, whereas he had only evicted one, though he might have had a number of under tenants not known to the landlord, and whom he had no idea of evicting. Tenants in many cases would not pay their rents unless they were evicted, or proceedings for the purpose of eviction were commenced against them. They were, in fact, afraid to pay their rents; and yet he saw the Prime Minister expressing sympathy with those who had induced them not to do so, and the tenants were now in this condition—that they knew not what further changes would be made in the law, and unless they were very honest men they would refrain from paying their rents. He would like to see Returns made of ejectments in the City of London for the same period of time as in Ireland. Unless there were a law that tenants should not pay their rent there must be evictions, whether the property they rented belonged to landlords or to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was going to put down crime; but they had had crime constantly increasing in Ireland during the whole time the present Government had been in Office; and, with the exception of the Coercion Act, which had not succeeded in repressing crime, and a remedial measure which had also been unsuccessful, nothing further had been done, and there were no indications of what the Government were going to do. Unless, however, something more were not done in regard to the Land League crime would increase, and go on increasing, until the Government were determined to enforce law and order. No man could say what would be the result either in this country or Ireland if the present state of things continued. The country and the Press had expected that some definite declaration of policy would be made on Wednesday last; but instead of that they had only a sort of sympathizing speech with a Gentleman who had brought forward a Bill, the object of which was further spoliation of the landlord.