HC Deb 04 March 1836 vol 31 cc1204-19
Mr. Wallace

rose to present three petitions from freeholders, inhabitants of the county of Carlow, and, before doing so, he wished to take that opportunity of renewing his notice of motion for the appointment of a Committee, to inquire into the proceedings alleged to have taken place at the two last Carlow elections. He had endeavoured, to the best of his means and ability, to ascertain, whether the petitions were respectably signed, and whether the statements they contained were consistent with truth, and he thought they came from individuals who would not deceive him. Since showing the petitions to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for the county (Colonel Bruen), he had found that there was a portion of one petition which contained a statement, for the accuracy of which the petitioners would not vouch, and he therefore at once expressed his determination not to present the petition without that passage being expunged. This had accordingly been done. The first petition he should present was from William Murray, who stated himself to be an elector of Carlow, and a tenant of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for the county. He had served the hon. Member for three years, in the capacity of a rent-driver, and had signified, in 1832, his intention of voting for the Reform candidate, since which he had been persecuted in the way the petition described. He stated, that he had been deprived of his situation of rent-driver, from which he derived 10l. annually, though he had faithfully served his master; and that, in consequence, he had never been able since to obtain a rent discharge—that was, a discharge for his rent as if he had been paid in full, a practice not confined to Ireland, but which was very common, as hon. Members were aware, both in England and Scotland, now that rents were so generally badly paid. The petitioner went on to state in detail the treatment which he had received from the gallant Member, and he added, that without some legislative interference, to prevent similar proceedings being taken against him and other electors of Carlow at future elections, the freedom of election would be altogether destroyed there, as it was the determination of the Conservative landlords of Carlow to coerce their Catholic tenantry either to vote against their consciences, or as they thought fit. The next petition he held was from an individual named Murphy, who was similarly situated to the last-named petitioner. He also was a tenant of the hon. and gallant Member for Carlow, and had experienced equal treatment for equal causes as the other. The petitioner stated, that in 1831 he had signified his intention of supporting the Reform candidates for the county of Carlow, in the general election which then took place, and that he had done so; in consequence of which he stated that he was deprived of a portion of his holding by the hon. and gallant Member, in which was included a right of turbary which he had possessed and exercised for a considerable period. Previous to the election of 1832, the right of turbary was restored to him, in the hope, and, as he stated his belief, on the speculation, that he would vote for the hon. and gallant Member, by whose order it had been restored. When that election came on, he stated, he was brought to the town of Carlow by those in the hon. and gallant Members interest, and locked up until he should vote for him; but he would not vote against his conscience, and he therefore contrived to make his escape and return to his home. He was not, however, suffered to remain there long; he was again brought back, and a party of the police accompanied those who compelled him to return. He was then again placed in the position of voting for the hon. and gallant Member, or voting according to his conscience. He voted according to the dictates of his conscience, and ever since he had been nearly brought to ruin by a series of persecutions directed against him on all occasions. He had been again deprived of the restored right of turbary; and although there had been usually a running account for rent between him and his landlord, it had been closed on a sudden, and, as he was unable to pay, he had been ejected, and was completely deprived of the land which had been upwards of forty years in his hands and those of his family. Like the former petitioner he prayed legislative protection, and hoped the House would interfere to prevent such persecution. The next petition which he (Mr. Wallace) had to present was the most extraordinary he had ever heard or known of in connexion with the rights of electors and the freedom of election; and, if it were capable of being sustained, deserved the deepest consideration of the House. It contained nineteen signatures out of twenty two—the whole number of tenants on the estate of a Mr. Alexander, a gentleman resident in the county of Carlow. The statements contained in that petition were to the following effect:—In 1831 Mr. Alexander, who was then a Reformer, had induced his tenantry to register their votes for the purpose of supporting the Reform interest. There being then no difference of opinion, they complied willingly with his requisition, and voted accordingly. In 1835 Mr. Alexander changed his opinion, and insisted that they should do so likewise. He wished them to vote for the hon. and gallant Member and his hon. Colleague for that county, in the election which took place that year; and if they refused, he threatened to drive them from his pro-petty, and dispossess them of their holdings. At various times and in various places, while that election was pending, at the booths and in the streets, he openly used threats of extermination against them, without any attempt at suppression or concealment; and as they did not vote according to his desire various law-suits were subsequently entered into, with the view of coercing, annoying, and injuring them. The consequence was, that they were almost ruined. In connexion with these suits the petitioner stated, that Mr. Alexander, being unable to find officers of justice to execute the law-processes necessary to sustain them, had recourse to the very unusual step of serving them himself, and thus becoming; a bailiff in his own cause. The petition further alleged, that Mr. Alexander stated publicly that a combined determination had been adopted by the landlords of the county of Carlow to subdue their refractory tenants, and that they had one and all sworn to remove from their estates every man holding under them, who did not vote according to their directions. The petitioners stated, that in consequence of these persecutions they had been nearly ruined by their landlords. One proof of the disposition which appeared to that effect on the part of that Gentleman would, he thought, be sufficient. Immediately after the conclusion of the election of the year 1835, they were called upon to pay the hanging gale—as it was termed in Ireland—in other words, the preceding six months' rent, which is never required until the succeeding half-year is due: they paid it. When the next six months had expired, they were called on to pay the rent due for it, which, with great difficulty, they did also, although there were only six weeks between the two payments; and, on the expiration of the following six months, they were called upon, and compelled to pay for that term also. Thus in nine months they had paid three complete quarters' rent, a circumstance which was unprecedented in Ireland, and he (Mr. Wallace) believed elsewhere also. If these allegations were capable of proof, he (Mr. Wallace) felt bound to say, that, until the system which created and fostered thorn was put an end to, there could be no freedom of election in that country. If these were facts, it must be at once allowed that the individual complained of, had gone unusual and unconstitutional lengths. The petitioner stated further, that means had been taken by Mr. Alexander, their landlord, to establish a body of police under the command of an officer near his house; and that he had succeeded in them. And they complained that, as the police was unnecessary in consequence of the peaceful state of the country, the only object of their being established there was to aid and assist him in performing his part of the condition of the league entered into by the Protestant landlords for the extermination of their Catholic freeholders of the county of Carlow. He (Mr. Wallace) did not mean to vouch for the accuracy of the statements contained in their petitions, but he thought it his duty to bring them before the House and the country, as they contained matter which it was necessary either to affirm or disprove without delay. As a petition of a similar character had been placed on the Votes of the House—one which had been presented on nearly the same subject on a recent occasion—it was his intention to ask a similar advantage for these; and he was sure, under all the circumstances, the House would not refuse him. He should, therefore, move that the petitions be printed; to the end that hon. Members might have the fullest opportunity of perusing them previous to the motion which he should bring; forward for a general and searching investigation into all the circumstances connected with the election for the county of Carlow. If the statements contained in them were false, then let the consequences be on the heads of those who had offended. He had no wish or interest in connexion with the case beyond the desire to discharge faithfully a public duty and perform a public service; and he would fairly and openly state that he should leave no stone unturned until, by the appointment of a Commission or some equally effective means, a strict inquiry was set on foot and the truth or falsehood of these extraordinary statements tested.

Colonel Bruen

thanked the hon. Member for Greenock for bringing this matter before the House, for both himself and the rest of the landlords of Carlow were most anxious that such an inquiry as that proposed by the hon. Member should take place, and that the conduct of persons of all sects and parties should be impartially but fully investigated. In fact, it was what they had been endeavouring to obtain for many years without effect, but they were still left to suffer evils which, he ventured to assert, existed in no civilized country of the world. The hon. Member then proceeded to read, in answer to the allegations of Murray, the following extract from a letter from Mr. H. Cary, of Carlow, to himself, dated August 15, 1835, which appears in the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee on Bribery at Elections:—"William Murray became your tenant, without a lease, for part of the lands of Ballyhacket, containing 8a, or. 18ps, from the 25th of March, 1822, at 40s. an acre, and on his complaining that the land was too dear, you agreed to allow him an abatement of 5s. an acre, yet he did not pay one shilling of the abated rent for the two years ending the 25th of March, 1824, notwithstanding which you not only forgave him the two years' rent, but you gave him a lease of the land at 35s. an acre, commencing from the 25th of March, 1824, from which period to September, 1832, his payments did not amount, notwithstanding repeated applications on my part, to fully two years' rent, so that in September, 1832, he owed you an arrear amounting to 85l. 3s. 8d.—I take great discredit to myself for having allowed this arrear to accumulate, but I was induced to do so in consideration of his having a large family, and as he always represented himself to me as being very poor, and unable to pay his rent. In February, 1833, I had ejectments served on him, which were tried at the April Sessions of that year; he took no defence, but in the June following he redeemed the land by paying the arrear, with the exception of 4l. 15s. 2d., and he has since continued to pay his rent regularly, which proves to me that his previous allegations of poverty were unfounded, and that I was deceived. I send you my account-books from 1826 to 1834, to show the state of his accounts. I never employed him as a rent-warner, driver, or gamekeeper, on your estate; it is true I told him to protect the game on Ballyhacket, and not allow any person to shoot on those lands without your orders; but this was the general direction given to all the tenants. He occasionally brought messages and notices from me to the tenants on that part of the estate, which were few in number, in like manner as I would ask any other tenant that I had confidence in; but as to his being obliged to come into my office twice a week, there could, by no possibility, be any necessity for it, nor did he do so; he is a dealer in bacon, and as such had occasions to come frequently to Carlow on his own business, and he has called at the office on some of these occasions, and brought messages from and to the tenants, but I do not recollect that he ever was brought specially to Carlow on your business, though such may have been the case after the ejectment was served on him, but never before. He claimed to be allewed 10l. a-year for his services: I told him he had no claim whatsoever; that his services were merely such as were expected from any other tenant; but I may have told him, though I am uncertain whether I did or not, that if he made a formal demand, I would make him some allowance, perhaps I may have said 5l. a-year, so as to remove all possible grounds of complaint on his part; but he absolutely refused my offer, which convinces me of the motives for the claim, I never furnished him with an account, nor was any account ever furnished by my directions, giving him credit for any allowance, or striking any balance of 36l. as being due by him, nor could I do so, as no allowance was ever made to him, nor was he entitled to any; if such an account was furnished him, he, no doubt, would have produced it at the trial of the ejectment process, and I should have been bound by it. It is probable he might have procured my clerk to draw out an account in the way he wished it, but if he did so it was altogether without my knowledge; I knew nothing of it. You are aware that there are only two drivers on the whole estate; namely, John M'Crea, and Matthew Griffith; their salary is only 8l. a-year, Irish each, therefore Murray's demand was absurd on the face of it, and could only have been suggested to him by some of the agitators, in order to found a grievance on it." Although I had no right whatever, said the hon. Member, to produce my private accounts, I offered to do so, and sent over for them for that purpose. Mr. Ord, however, the chairman of the Committee, said it was quite unnecessary. With respect to the case of Murphy, he was to pay a rent of only 15l. a-year, and yet he allowed arrears to the amount of 80l. to accumulate—in fact, he paid just what and when he pleased, like the rest of the tenants. I have received several letters, with all of which I do not think it necessary to trouble the House; but there is one to which. I beg attention. It is from Mr. George Dwyer, dated Ardrahan, February 29, in which he states that he is the son-in-law of the person who owns the estate of Ballytarsna, of which we heard so much the other night, and says—"As a member of the family, who are deeply indebted to your generous forbearance from asserting your own rights, I solemnly declare, that had you availed yourself of the fair and legal opportunity open to you, it was in your power to have resumed possession of the lands of Ballytarsna, and to have added to your income the very considerable profit rent now enjoyed by my brother-in-law and his family. With reference to the management of the estate, a receiver was appointed by the Court of Chancery during my brother-in-law's minority, and the agent under the authority of the Court was compelled to remove such tenants as were either unwilling or unable to pay in their rents to the Court; with this you had nothing to do." How Mr. Alexander may think it proper to proceed (continued the hon. Member) with those tenants who refuse to pay either tithe or rent, it is not for me or for any one else to inquire, provided, in his very natural endeavour to obtain his rights, he does not violate the law; and I once; more protest, in the name of the landlords of Carlow, against such attempts to call them to account as to how they manage their private affairs. This I do know of Mr. Alexander, that to no man in Ireland is the community more indebted than to him, for the extraordinary improvement that he has caused in an extensive district. When he came to that county, about forty years ago, he has told me, when viewing these improvements, that one cabin, without a tree or a bush, was all he found on his arrival. The most extensive mills, I believe, in Ireland, a handsome residence, fine trees, extensive plantations, strikingly neat and comfortable houses, with a numerous, happy, and grateful tenantry, in constant employment, were the results of the endeavours of one of the most public-spirited and munificent men in the empire, till for their sins Father Kehoe turned politician. The effects of his pious endeavours may be gathered in some degree from the petition. Mr. Alexander still remains the same kind and liberal man that his acts have proved him; but he does not choose to be bought and sold, and has the hardihood openly to say so. With respect to his son, he is likewise grossly attacked, as having stated that all the Tory landlords had sworn to exterminate the Roman Catholics. The thing is absurd on the face of it. I believe he has just finished an excellent house for one of that persuasion, who has been barbarously treated by the mob because he voted as he pleased, and against whom Father Kehoe preached his celebrated sermon, to be found in the Report of the Committee on Bribery. It is stated that men who have been employed for years in the mills have been discharged. The House will not be surprised at that, when they hear that the workmen, in a body, have received orders from the priest to quit instantaneously the premises of gentlemen, friends of mine, engaged in the malting business, at the critical moment when hundreds of pounds worth of barley must either be turned or lost, and have been forced to obey. Is it, then, astonishing that men in business should endeavour to guard themselves against the recurrence of such dangers, and only employ those who are free agents? Is it not, rather, a fit subject for our amazement that the very men who commit these crimes can have the unparalleled effrontery to appear before the public as the accusers of those who are suffering under the effects of them? As to the police-barracks at the rear of Mr. Alexander's house, the case is simply this:—There happens to be a bridge over the river Barrow, which, fortunately for us, separates Carlow from the Queen's County. Large parties of White feet and other desperadoes used to come across this bridge into our county by night, and wreak their vengeance on the peaceable inhabitants. In order to check this, a police station has been established there, which has had, I believe, the desired effect, and has given great offence to the advocates of liberty. When I had lately the honour of addressing the House, it was my intention briefly to have endeavoured to show with what injustice the landlords of Carlow had been assailed in the petition lately presented from Mr. Vigors, as well as to state some other matters connected with that county, which it has now become essentially necessary that the House and the country should know; it did not, however, seem right to some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite that I should proceed. I therefore desisted, having much reason to be thankful for the patience with which they listened to my statement, but apprehend that there can now be no objection to ray proceeding. Within this day or two I have received letters and affidavits contradicting the allegations in Mr. Vigors's petition. With these I do not think it at all necessary to trouble the House now, but I have received one letter the substance of which I must be allowed to communicate. It is from Mr. Butler, the agent of Lieutenant-Colonel Latouche. He states that he has been for the last twenty-eight years, and his father for the thirty-three years previously, sole agent for these estates in Carlow, and that during the whole of that period, the long period of sixty- one years, an ejectment has never been had recourse to. This he could say with truth, which he observed others seemed to disregard, that the lease of these lands mentioned, paying a rent of only 2s. 6d. per acre, lately expired; that Lieutenant-Col. Latouche had directed seventy-six acres to be given at a moderate rent to the family of the original tenant; that he found thirteen cabins on a wretched and unimproved hill, the inhabitants idle, demoralized, and uncivilized—the few that could write, requisionists for every illegal purpose, and this, perhaps, might give some clue to the reason for these complaints and lamentations—the land not affording sufficient support to the numbers that had congregated on it. Under these circumstances, he proceeded to say, that he considered it not unfair that the lands should be put into such a state as would be likely to afford some remuneration to the landlord, and to hope for that, as they were then circumstanced, was impossible. These persons were allowed to remain fifteen months on the land, rent free, and then each went away, removing the materials of their houses, together with every thing portable. To the head of each family he gave some pounds in money. There was but one widow; to her he gave 5l., and she was most thankful. Mr. Butler proceeded to complain of the injustice of such an attack upon a landlord whose kindness and liberality were proverbial— and on this point I most willingly add my testimony, for all who have the pleasure of knowing Lieutenant-Colonel Latouche are well aware that a more generous or kindhearted landlord or gentleman does not exist. Mr. Butler adds in a postscript—"You will please observe there was not a freeholder on this townland which is so much complained of, and of course nothing political could be mixed up with the removals." Any comment on this plain statement of facts, continued the hon. Member, I take to be unnecessary. The House will observe that a number of idle and disorderly people have been, after much kindness and generosity, removed; now this, in the eyes of the political priests, is an offence not to be forgiven. Their consequence and their power, as agitators, are impaired. These are the deluded people at whose head they place themselves, and scour the country in all directions by day and by night; they sally forth from the chapels on the Sabbath day, having first duly inflamed their religious zeal, to canvass the freeholders at the head of such mobs, threatening them with death and destruction to their houses and properties if they do not vote for their priest and their country. Not satisfied with the mobs of one county, they summon the priests from those adjacent, who march in at the head of their forces; the inhabitants fly from their houses, and hide themselves in the ditches and coverts; and the country has now the appearance of one invaded by a barbarous enemy, rather than one basking in the sunshine of reform, and reposing under the wing of a patriotic and liberal government. I, myself, have witnessed what I describe. In some instances, the priests drag men from their homes and from their sick beds; they carry them prisoners to their houses, detain them there for days against their will, and parade them through the country and through the towns, like the conquerors of old. They force them to the hustings, take their stations opposite to them in the booths, and, fixing on them an eye more withering than Vathek's, they constrain them to perjure themselves at the registries, and to vote at the elections against their wishes and against their interests, and their poor victims can only say, "How can we help it? Their outrages end not here; if any have the hardihood to assert their rights in defiance of all this, and to vote against whatever unimpeachable patriot may have been the highest bidder, whose very name, perhaps, they had never before heard, or may not be able to pronounce, they are denounced from the altar as heretics and Orangemen; their neighbours are ordered to have no communication with them, not to buy from them, not to sell to them, not to treat with them at fair or market; their cattle are maimed; their farming implements destroyed, and their houses burnt; their names are posted in black lists on every chapel door in the county; a line is drawn around their door, which no one must pass: their very wives are forbidden to come near them, and if by the utmost vigilance and precaution they escape at last with their lives, it is more than they could in reason expect. The landlords in the mean time are abused, insulted, and injured in every possible way. They cannot ride even along the public way in peace or safety. Their best horses and dogs are poisoned, their property injured and destroyed; their servants set as spies over them; their labourers forbidden to work for them, and obliged to leave their employment at the most critical times and seasons, when hundreds may be lost in the course of a few hours; their very lives are continually in danger, as far as the ruffians dare to go, and, in short, every device is resorted to that man or devil can suggest, to drive them out of the country. This is a mere sketch, a faint outline of what we endure; and if the landlords of Carlow had been driven to retaliate to mete to their enemies with their own measure, and to pay them in their own coin, I do not say they would have been justified, but assuredly it would be allowed they had received ample provocation. But I will go further, and state, that if they had discharged their duty as they ought to themselves and to their country, some of those gentlemen who now figure as witnesses and petitioners before this House and its Committees, would, if justice were to be obtained, have been long since in a very different part of his Majesty's dominions, together with numbers of their misguided followers. But we have borne these insults and injuries with patience, still hoping for better days, and we have been justly rewarded for our folly. This is the liberty we enjoy, and for the increase of which such clamours are continually ringing in our ears; and it is fitting that Parliament and the country should know the truth before they proceed, by fresh enactments, to place new and dangerous powers in the hands of those who have made so bad a use of those they already unfortunately possess. Let the House bear this in mind, that, with respect to the great body of the people, there is scarcely, as matters now stand, such a thing in Ireland as liberty, unless it be the liberty of murder and outrage; nor can any be expected until the political incendiaries, instead of being encouraged, are made amenable to the law. The maladies under which we labour, until that is done, must continue to increase. These are the men who have the effrontery to accuse us of tyranny and oppression to the electors, as if the question was whether or not the elector in Ireland should be permitted fairly to exercise his franchise; but it is no such thing; the question is, shall the priest be allowed to drive him where be pleases, and sell him to the highest bidder? This is our present state, and must continue to be so, unless the landlord steps in, and the laws of this House and of the country are enforced. Take, for example, the transactions of the last few years in Carlow, even from what has been publicly admitted, and I can go somewhat further if necessary.—We have been hawked about like a bale of goods to every fair and market in the country; we have been offered to one, refused by another, and forced upon a third, till we have become a mere drug in the market. The patriot in Ireland, the Radical in England, have both been equally deaf to the voice of the charmer. Possibly the Liberal in Scotland may have had his ambition tickled by glowing descriptions of this safe speculation; but be that as it may, this is not the first, second, or third time, that we have been notoriously put up to auction, and here we are at last knocked down like a lot, by Mr. George Robins. To reconcile us to our misfortunes, we were promised a staunch and consistent reformer, whose principles were all that could be desired, but, if, after all, our purchaser turns out to be such an "incomprehensible vagabond," truly it must be confessed that we have been hardly dealt with. But I will beg leave to explain more particularly the degree of liberty that the Roman Catholic in Car-low enjoys, and give one out of 100 instances. He is told, in the first place, that he holds his franchise for the good of his country: his priest is the judge of that, and he must give his vote, and no thanks to him, as his priest pleases. This demand is enforced by the rabble on every opportunity, but more particularly at the chapel on Sunday. Seldom can any demur or resistance be expected; but should any thing of the sort be apprehended, strangers are brought and placed in front, and the unfortunate recusant is beaten and abused without being able to recognize one of his tormentors, so as to bring them to punishment, if he dare to think of such a thing; or he is dragged out of the chapel during the service, or his wife or daughter is thrown over out of the gallery. Let not the House imagine that these are imaginary cases, or that they partake in any degree of the character of rhetorical artifices. They are sad truths—matters of fact, not only with respect to the poorer, but to the wealthier classes. I had a tenant, a most independent man as to his circumstances. Besides two rich and extensive farms, he had, to my certain knowledge 2,000l. in money; he always supported me until the last general election, some time previous to which he went to his chapel, when he found the gate locked; he attempted to climb over the wall, when he was pulled back, hustled, and struck with stones, and his wife was so ill-treated that premature labour was brought on and the child died. The man himself is since dead, and from what he told me himself, as well as from what I have learned from his friends, I have no doubt that his death was caused by the vexation. I could mention many other instances, but this will suffice; and I put it to the House, is not all this enough to induce me earnestly to call upon his Majesty's Government to appoint a Commission, not only that the liberty of the elector may be secured, but that all his Majesty's loyal subjects may be protected from the outrages that would disgrace Barbary?

Mr. Francis Bruen

congratulated his hon. Relative that the numerous and weighty charges which had been brought against him had dwindled into the most absurd and ridiculous complaints of two persons of the names of Murray and Murphy. And what was Murray's complaint? Why, that he had not been allowed a salary for an office which he never possessed; and Murphy complained that he had been forced by his landlord to go to the hustings, and vote contrary to his conscience, and having been obliged to accept of some turf. But the hon. Member for Greenock, who dwelt on the cases of these men, forgot that Murphy had stated that his rent had been paid, and his arrears and law expenses by his neighbour. Now who was the neighbour of this Mr. Murphy, who was so sensitive of bribery? His neighbour was Alexander Raphael. He was the good Samaritan; thus, though a little turf had stuck in his throat, Mr. Murphy would yet swallow the whole of his rent, arrears, and law expenses that were paid by his neighbour. Neither of these men had suffered. They admitted that they still had their franchise, were still In possession of their lands, and that their rent had been paid by their neighbour. What then had they to complain of? Nothing, And so ended the charges against his hon. Relative. Finding that these stories would not do, his hon. Relative's accusers started a fresh hare, in the person of Mr. Alexander, anything, in short, to prove that it was right to seek somewhere else rather than allow the resident landlords of Carlow to possess a fit representative. Rather than allow them to exercise their rights it was deemed proper to propose as a Member" the most incomprehensible of all imaginable vagabonds." The charge against Mr. Alexander was, that he had asked his tenants—for what? For tithe and rent. Pray, how did Mr. Alexander know but that his tenants had as good neighbours as Murray and Murphy? But he would ask any hon. Member whether these charges had any real foundation? No; the true matter of fact was this—that because the landlords of Carlow would not permit their town and county to form a link in the vast chain of rotten boroughs under the control of that great reformer opposite, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—because they would not suffer that, they must be aspersed and vilified, and held up to the British public as monsters in human shape; and the people of England were to be deluded by those audacious calumnies. He felt it his duty to rise and caution hon. Members against receiving such statements without having them fully inquired into; and having done so, he should not say more.

Mr. Hope

said, as it appeared that the accusers in this case had shifted their places, he did not think it necessary then to trouble the House with any remarks; it appeared that the charges made against his hon. Friend were without the least foundation, but he should be always ready, and most happy to meet the question if it should ever again be raised. There was one circumstance, however, about the affair which he confessed he could not clearly understand; he did not understand how it happened that the hon. Member for Greenock having given notice of his motion, should have been so long without bringing it forward. Why had he postponed it so frequently? If he were so unfortunate as to be too low down on the notice-list, why did he not, if the matter were indeed so urgent and important, move on the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply? He repeated, that it did appear to him most unacountable how such a lengthened postponement could have taken place.

Mr. Hardy

observed, that although there had been no imputation on him in the petition presented to-night, or in the petition presented on a former occasion, yet he did feel that ever since he had brought the motion on relating to the Carlow business, he had been labouring under an unjust imputation cast on him by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; he, therefore, would crave leave of the House to correct the misrepresentations, because he (Mr. Hardy) found that what the hon. and learned Member stated had been trumpeted forth in the provincial newspapers.

Lord John Russell

rose to order. The hon. Gentleman was not only travelling out of the matter of the petition before the House, but be was acting contrary to a standing order of the House, which forbade any reference to what had been said in a former debate.

Mr. Hardy

only wished to have an opportunity to vindicate his character from the imputations that had been made against him.

The Speaker

observed, that as the subject would come under discussion on a future day, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would find an opportunity to address the House on that occasion.

Mr. Hardy

would then give notice, that when the Motion of the hon. Member for Greenock should be brought forward, he would take the opportunity, with the permission of the House, of vindicating himself against the aspersions that had been thrown on his character.

The petitions laid on the Table.

Back to