Mr. Wallacepresented the following Petitions from 350 individuals, the tenants of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Carlow:
§ "PETITION OF TENANTS OF COL. HENRY BRUEN RELATING TO THE COUNTY OF CARLOW ELECTION".
§ "A Petition of tenants of Col. Henry Bruen resident in the county of Carlow, was presented and read; setting forth, that the Petitioners are informed, and believe, that a petition on behalf of Nicholas A. Vigors, Esq., containing certain allegations against the character of Col. Bruen as a landlord, has been presented to the House; that Petitioners are the tenants and neighbours of Col. Bruen during many years, and having a perfect knowledge of all his official acts, both as a landlord and a resident country gentleman, they respectfully but earnestly state that the charges set forth in the said Petition of N. A. Vigors, Esq., are unfounded, and they express their deep regret that charges so groundless and unwarrantable could be set before the House so indiscreetly by said N. A. Vigors, calculated to hold forth an amiable and indulgent landlord to the indignation of the lower classes of society, who are necessarily unacquainted with the truth or fallacy of the allegations in the said petition; that petitioners take this public opportunity of testifying before the assembled representatives of the nation their deep gratitude to Colonel Bruen, not only as an indulgent landlord, but as a gentleman, whose charities for years have been unbounded; that petitioners feel themselves called upon to state to the House that Col. Bruen never exerts his authority to eject his tenants, unless where large arrears accumulate from negligence and want of industry, and even then his humanity is equally conspicuous as his indulgence, for he permits them to remove their stock and the produce of their farms, forgiving rent and arrears, and in many cases has granted annuities for life to persons ejected under such circumstances; that petitioners believe the list of grievances set forth in the petition of N. A. Vigors to be wholly unfounded,-one solitary instance they respectfully hope will suffice to show the general character of the charges of the said petitioner. Colonel Bruen obtains the credit of ejecting from the lands of Ballytarsna, 'nineteen families, consisting of 104 individuals, including twenty-one widows and orphans;' now, the facts that should have beep stated to the House are, that a Mr. Mills is the intermediate landlord of the said tenantry, and that, if a few families were ejected several years ago by him, Col. Bruen had not, directly or indirectly, any power or authority over said property, being only the head landlord, 507 and paid only a nominal rent by Mr. Mills; that the petitioners having stated thus fairly and honestly their opinions on this extraordinary case, leave with confidence the consideration of the matter to the House, satisfied that such measures will be adopted in vindication of Colonel Bruen's character as the House shall deem wise and expedient; the petitioners submit to the House that such accusations were put forward by the said N. A. Vigors, in order to impress the House with the idea that Colonel Bruen has made use of intimidation towards his tenantry to induce them to support him as candidate for the said county of Carlow, which the petitioners are fully prepared to contradict before a Committee of the House; that petitioners further beg to state that they are prepared to show that gross intimidation has been used in numerous instances at and previous to each election since the year 1831, when Sir J. M. Doyle and Mr. Blackney were returned, in order to prevent the tenantry of Colonel Bruen and Mr. Kavanagh from supporting them, which they were most anxious to do, and the petitioners pray the House will afford an opportunity of fully investigating all matters relating thereto, before a Committee of the House."
§ It was impossible that any language more satisfactory to the feeling of the hon. and gallant Member could be used, than that contained in this petition. He must guard himself against vouching for the accuracy of the statements contained in this petition, inasmuch as he had no means of ascertaining how far those statements were or were not correct. He meant to propose that this and two other similar petitions which he was about to present should be printed and circulated with the votes, in the same way as the previous petitions had been circulated. He begged also to observe, that until both sides of the question had been thus sent forth to hon. Members, he should not press his motion for an inquiry. The next petition with which he was charged was from John Alexander, Esq., of the county of Carlow, against whom petitions had been presented, impugning his conduct with reference to his tenantry. The petition was to the following effect:—
§ PETITION OF JOHN ALEXANDER RELATING TO THE COUNTY OF CARLOW ELECTION.
§ "A Petition of John Alexander, of Milford, in the county of Carlow, was presented, and read; setting forth, that the petitioner has read with great astonishment in the public papers a petition presented to the House by the hon. Member for Greenock, accusing the petitioner of having used harassing and ruinous measures wantonly as a landlord towards 508 his tenants, and committed acts meriting the reprehension of the country at large; that the petitioner humbly but earnestly prays for public inquiry into the particulars of these statements, as he is anxious of having an opportunity of refuting such calumnies against his character; at the present the petitioner, unwilling to intrude on the House, except as far as necessary for the vindication of his character, humbly declines entering into any detail further than to state in reply to that part of the petition which accuses the petitioner of having ruined his tenantry by vexatious modes of litigation; that he was forced to recover, by legal proceedings, the tithe for which he had become liable under Lord Stanley's Bill, and which his tenantry had declared three several times most positively that they never would pay, although not demanded by the petitioner till upwards of four months from the day it became due; the amount of the costs returned by the petitioners' law agent was 2l. 15s. which, the petitioner thinking too high, actually remitted 1l. in each case, leaving only the sum of 1l. 15s. to be paid by each as law cost; this is the total amount of their expenses which have been stated to the House as ruinous; the petitioner begs humbly to remind the House that the farms leased by him to the persons whose names were affixed to the petition against him, were declared on oath before the Committee of the House in August last, on the Carlow petition, by three several witnesses (respectable in appearance) to be worth one-half more than the rents for which the petitioner leased them, and in several instances more than double the rent, though the leases are but five years in being; the petitioner, therefore, considers himself most fully justified in enforcing the payments of his just and moderate rights, which his tenantry most directly and most distinctly refused to pay three different times; the petitioner never acted as his own bailiff, nor never served his tenantry with any law process or law paper whatever; the petitioner prays humbly for strict and immediate investigation into all the circumstances of the case."
§ He (Mr. Wallace) believed Mr. Alexander to be a gentleman of the highest respectability, and much beloved and esteemed in his neighbourhood. He then presented a petition from an English gentleman resident in Carlow, of the name of Woodcock, complaining of what he considered the tyrannical conduct of Colonel Bruen towards his tenants. On the motion that this petition be brought up,
Colonel Bruensaid, he scarcely felt himself called upon to make any reply to the statements contained in the petition from Mr. Woodcock. As, however, that gentleman was an old acquaintance, he would say a few words, more for the sake of letting the House know who the petitioner was, 509 than by way of entering into any explanation of the reasons why he (Colonel Bruen) had chosen to ask a tenant for his rent, or making any apology for so doing. He would, however, first just mention that the animal rent payable by the tenant whom Mr. Woodcock had taken under his protection was 83l. 12s., and arrears were now due by him to the amount of 185l. 19s. The petitioner stated, that promises were made to the tenants in debt to their landlords (a pretty numerous body), though with the greatest caution, that their arrears should be forgiven if they voted for the Tory candidates. Now, all he (Colonel Bruen) could say on this point was, that so extreme were the caution, prudence, and circumspection used in communicating this secret to such Members, that he for one never heard of it before—and if he had been intrusted with the secret, assuredly be would not have been a party to the agreement. If he were disposed to speculate in a matter that had since been found so safe and easy, and not unlawful, he certainly could have obtained votes on better terms. This Mr. Woodcock was, as he had already said, an old friend of his—he was one of the very few persons that in the course of his life he had been obliged to prosecute for poaching—and to this circumstance, no doubt, was he (Colonel Bruen) indebted for the honour now conferred on him by the allegations set forth in this petition. He had heard that this Mr. Woodcock was on the half-pay of some dragoon regiment, and if unceasingly inflaming the bad passions of the multitude, haranguing and urging them on to violation of the law, heading tithe and election mobs, and keeping a remote and extensive district for years in a state of terror and disturbance, were services in which those receiving half-pay should be employed, no person earned it better than Mr. Woodcock. With respect to Mr. Alexander's petition, it was unnecessary for him to say much; indeed, he would only refer to a single point. Mr. Alexander complained of having been accused-of ruining his tenantry by vexatious litigation. The facts were these—he became responsible for the tithe—be let his land accordingly, reducing his rent in proportion, and so had given full value for the tithe to the tenants. They, of course, thankfully undertook the payment of a very moderate rent. However, they were prevailed upon, or obliged, after a time to refuse. Mr. Alexander, after repeated friendly applications on his part, and reso- 510 lute refusals on theirs, and after waiting for months, at length was obliged to institute legal proceedings. Even then, his kindness and good nature were conspicuous; for after all this he prevailed upon them to go in a body to Carlow during the quarter sessions, and take the advice of a counsel professing very liberal opinions. The consequence was, that they returned satisfied of the folly and illegality of their conduct, and paid his demand. Mr. Alexander forth with stopped the legal proceedings, and finding that each had incurred costs to the amount of 2l. 15s. he came forward and paid out of his own pocket nearly one-half for each. For this most uncalled-for, and it would seem, ill-judged act of generosity, these very tenants now assailed him as a tyrannical landlord. In conclusion, he begged publicly to express his thanks to the numerous petitioners who had come forward to relieve him from the unjust attacks by which his character had been assailed.
§ Mr. Hardywas desirous of taking this occasion to explain some part of the conduct he had pursued on a late occasion. He had then been pointedly alluded to by the hon. Member for Dublin; and he should have replied at the time, but for the retirement of that hon. Member from the House. The hon. Member had complained of an assertion made by him, viz.—that the hon. Member had received a copy of the petition from Bath before it was in his hands. He had been informed that such was the fact. He had letters to prove that a printed copy of the petition from Bath was sent to the hon. Member for Dublin; and if he had not received it, it was at this moment in the dead-letter office. The hon. Member had also remarked, that it was extraordinary that he had brought forward the case, as they had formerly met in the Temple. He remembered meeting the hon. Member in the Temple; but he did not remember that they had ever been at the chambers of each other.
§ Mr. Warburtonspoke to order; submitting that this course was inconsistent with the rules of debate.
§ The Speakerdecided, that any reply to what had been said in a former debate was undoubtedly irregular.
§ Mr. Hardyurged that he was only pursuing a course due in justice to him-self. Me had understood that he was to be afforded an opportunity of explaining certain matters with which he had been 511 charged. The hon. Member for Dublin had accused him of having been guilty of bribery at Pontefract. He could only say—
§ Mr. Warburtonagain interposed.
§ Sir J. Wrottesleyspoke to order.
§ The Speakeragain decided that the course the hot). Member was pursuing was irregular, although the House might grant him the indulgence of being heard.
§ Mr. Methuencomplained of this delay of public business.
§ Colonel Percevalthought the character of an individual Member a paramount subject. It might be irregular to refer to former debates, but he had never known the House refuse to a Member who had been attacked an opportunity of explanation. The hon. Member for Bradford would have vindicated himself on the former night had not the hon. Member for Dublin retired. He only claimed for the hon. Member for Bradford the usual courtesy.
Mr. O'ConnellWhen the hon Member claims courtesy, he should take care that he shews it himself. I did not retire to prevent the hon. Member for Bradford from making a speech, but I withdrew at the suggestion of the Speaker.
§ Mr. Hardyrose amid cries of Chair, Order, and Hear. He was prepared to meet the hon. Member for Dublin at any time. With regard to the Pontefract election, he hoped that the hon. Member's veracious and sapient informant had also told him that he Mr. Hardy lost his return because he was the advocate of Catholic Emancipation. He hoped that the informant had also stated—[the hon. Member was inaudible from the interruption. Considerable confusion ensued, which lasted some time.] The hon. Member then stated he had understood not only from the other side of the House, but from the lips of the Speaker, that the fit time for him to vindicate himself would be when certain petitions were presented, and for that reason on the former night he had sat down waiting for this evening.
§ The Speakeragreed that he had told the hon. Member that he could revert to 512 the subject when the subject was again introduced. The subject would again be introduced, and then the proper time would have arrived, and not on the presentation of a petition.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he did not mean to allude to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bradford [Cries of Spoke.] When he before rose, he had only spoken to order, and not to the question of printing the petitions now before the House. He did not mean to oppose the printing of them, on the contrary, he had himself several to lay before the House, which he hoped would also be printed. He did not think it worth while to complain—he merely noticed that the hon. and gallant Member, in defending himself, had had the presumption (so he thought he might best call it) to introduce an allusion to him. The hon. Member [had not yet been tried—he had not challenged investigation, or said one word to show that he wished for a committee to inquire. The hon. Member had not imitated his conduct—he had not dared the production of evidence, and yet, after the committee had made its report, he had presumed to throw out insinuations against him. The motive was obvious, hœret laleri lethalis arundo. Some of the hon. Member's tenants had voted against him, but none of Mr. Kavanagh's tenants had voted against him. What was the reason? Mr. Kavanagh was an excellent landlord; his tenants, Catholic as well as Protestant, supported him; but a number of the hon. and gallant Member's tenants had voted against him. He would pledge himself to no facts; but this he would say, that he was in possession of documents which, if verified, would establish a case of the grossest cruelty against the hon. and gallant Member. But he and his friends were wiser than to court inquiry; they would shrink from it. If the hon. and gallant Member had, indeed, so complete a vindication, no man would more rejoice at it than he would. Yes, he should rejoice at such a vindication, He perceived the sneer on hon. Members' countenances, but it afforded only one more proof how people judged of others by themselves. He had always treated the gallant officer, and even his prejudices, with respect; he would do so still; and, he repeated, that no man would rejoice more at the establishment of a complete vindication. If it were a calumny, let it be defeated and ex- 513 posed, and the calumniators punished to the utmost extent of the power of the House. All he said was, that the petitions contained allegations which demanded inquiry. He wanted to know if the hon. and gallant Member had not let his lands at war rents, and, giving no receipts, if any of his tenants voted against him, did he not call upon them for arrears of those war rents? He had no right to call for payment of those nominal rents because the tenant exercised his franchise as his conscience dictated. He did not assert that the allegations were true, but that their truth ought to be investigated.
Colonel Bruencould not help adverting to the manner in which the rules of the House were disregarded by the hon. and learned Gentleman, while, at the same time, he complained of others being disorderly. It appeared, then, that the hon. and learned Gentleman might get up and make attacks on the character of Gentlemen on his (Colonel Bruen's) side of the House, and when they rose to vindicate themselves from the aspersions cast upon them, they were interrupted by Gentlemen opposite.
§ The SpeakerThe hon. and gallant Member has already spoken on the question that the Petition do lie on the Table.
Colonel Bruenagain repeated that the rules of the House had been sacrificed by the learned Member in the attacks made by him. Was it impartial justice, then, that a person should be interrupted when he got up to defend himself? [cries of spoke.] He defied the threats held out by the hon. and learned Member, and was fully prepared to vindicate his conduct, and was anxious that the subject should be brought forward. He had repeatedly urged the hon. Member for Greenock to bring forward a Motion on the subject, and could not help complaining that that hon. Gentleman had inserted his notice of motion at the bottom of the list, instead of getting it placed at the top, as it should be, involving as it did, serious charges against the character of a Member of the House. He had no hesitation in saying that there was no wish whatever to bring the subject forward. He challenged them to do so, but he believed that they had no wish to do so. He defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to the proof of the assertions he had made against him.
§ The SpeakerThe hon. and gallant Member is clearly out of order, as he has already spoken on the motion before the House.
§ The petition was laid on the table.
§ On the question that it be printed,
Colonel Bruensaid, that he apprehended that he was in order in making an observation on that point. He would then tell the hon. and learned Member that the statements made respecting him were without foundation. These were only a number of old stories which had often been brought forward during the last four or five years, and had repeatedly been shown to be groundless. He had no hesitation in saying that the story about his persecuting his tenants in consequence of their voting against him was totally false. The hon. and learned Member had alluded to his hon. Colleague (Mr. Kavanagh) as being a good landlord, and the consequence was, that he was supported by the whole of his tenantry; but that was not the case with him. He admitted that his hon. Friend was deservedly respected as a good landlord; but it was notorious that many more of his hon. Friend's tenants voted against him than his (Col. Bruen's) tenant's voted against him.
Mr. Wallacewished to assure the hon. and gallant Member, that he had not brought forward the motion of which he had given notice, because he had no opportunity of doing so; but he would arrange with the hon. Gentleman, in the course of the evening, to fix on the first convenient day.
§ Petition to be printed.