§ Dr. Lefroymoved, that the adjourned debate on the Irish outrages be resumed. He said, that it might be irksome to resume this debate at so late an hour; but, on the former evening, when he was in possession of the House, he had waved his privilege on the understanding that he should have an opportunity on the present occasion of replying to certain charges which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin against persons in whom he felt the deepest interest. He felt called upon to draw the attention of the House at the earliest pos- 309 sible period to the charges which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, against a noble Lord and his agent relative to the management of that noble Lord's estates in the county of Longford. He regretted the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had made those charges, but he had given him notice of his intention, and it was, therefore, no fault of his that the hon. and learned Gentleman was now absent. The statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made was, that the disturbances in Longford were owing to the conduct of Lord Lorton and his agent in the management of his estates, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had read an extract from a newspaper as a proof that oppression was practised by his Lordship. The hon. Member had also said, that his statement was not made upon his own responsibility, as he had taken the facts from the public papers; but when he recollected what had actually taken place, he contended, that he was entitled to fix the whole responsibility of the statement on the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given his own facts, and had quoted the statements of counsel, which were necessarily of an ex parte character, in support of his arguments, and he had then concluded by saying, "Here is Lord Lorton for you, and here is the cause of the disturbances of Longford." Now, after such observations, he contended, that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not shake off the responsibility of the statement he had made. But was that statement correct? He would call the attention of the House to evidence of the most satisfactory kind in regard to the management of the estates of Lord Lorton in the county of Longford—evidence with which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was fully acquainted, and which ought to have made him the last man to bring forward such a charge. He alluded to the evidence taken before the Fictitious Votes Committee in June last, of which committee the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was a member. Lord Lorton's agent appeared before that committee for the purpose of ascertaining the state of the registry in the county of Longford, and he had been examined and cross-examined by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in regard to the management of Lord Lorton's estates for the 310 three previous years. At the conclusion of that examination the hon. and learned Member complimented the agent on the mode in which he had given his evidence, and said that the evidence had been given with the utmost fairness and impartiality. To a few of the answers given he now wished to call the attention of the House; but he would observe, in the first place, that the objection was, that Lord Lorton, from a principle of bigotry, had been ejecting the Roman Catholics from his estates and turning them off without the means of subsistence. One of the questions put to the agent was whether he had known Roman Catholics turned off from the estates of Lord Lorton in order to bring in Protestants in their room? To that the reply was, that he had known Roman Catholics turned off, but it was under these circumstances—they were turned off at the expiration of a lease of a town land which had become covered with paupers, but a selection from the better part of the Roman Catholics had been allowed to remain. Though one Protestant was introduced, that addition to the tenantry was not intended to have the effect of excluding any Roman Catholics. Lord Lorton's agent, examined before a committee of that House, expressly declaring, that where tenants earned the confidence of Lord Lorton by good conduct they were not exposed to the least chance of removal, and above all, there was no exclusion whatever on the ground of religion. The only Protestant introduced upon the estate in question was a man of the name of Block, who came from the north for the purpose of improving the state of agriculture in that district, and especially with a view to the cultivation of flax and the establishment of the linen manufacture, and he only got two or three acres; none of the tenants were put off by ejectment, every man of them retired voluntarily, and every family was furnished with the means of going to America, if they thought fitting so to do; yet from the evidence of Lord Lorton's agent, examined by the hon. and learned Member, it distinctly appeared, that two murders were committed upon the estates of Lord Lorton within the short period of three months, and, he believed, four within nine months; so much for the evidence before the committee. He was enabled, from statements on which he could fully rely, and, indeed, 311 from other parts of the report besides that which he had read, to state, that the property in question, now belonging to Lord Lorton, formed no part of his hereditary possessions. Towards the latter end of the last century it had been purchased by some member of Lord Lorton's family. His Lordship's object was to weed the property of the bad tenants, and the crowded population which the injudicious management of his predecessors had allowed to overrun the land. He wished further to introduce there an improved system of agriculture, especially he desired to introduce the cultivation of flax and the linen manufacture. The land, previously to Lord Lorton's occupation of it, had been crowded with middlemen, who had under them a wretched pauper tenantry, whose condition, if not interfered with, precluded all hope of improvement. Following up, then, his intention of effecting some amelioration, his noble Friend introduced one single tenant from the north, who was of the Protestant religion, and the measure of giving him a residence on the estate, so far from being intended as any act of hostility against the Roman Catholics, was resorted to with no other purpose than that of promoting the cultivation of flax. The unfortunate man was murdered within one month from the time of his arrival. He lived near the village of Ballinamuck; he was murdered at noonday, in the presence of his wife, who, when she was examined as a witness on the trial of the murderers, stated, that seeing her husband killed, she fled into the village to the police-station for protection—that the village was crowded with persons who were tenants on Lord Lorton's estates, and that when she came into Ballinamuck, screaming under the influence of terror and affliction, they scoffed at her, instead of paying the least attention to her entreaties for assistance. Not a man in the crowd was there to feel for or to sympathize with the affliction of this wretched widow. Was it then to be wondered at that Lord Lorton should desire to clear such characters off his estates? But even of those, much as their conduct was to be condemned, not a man was removed otherwise than by purchase; every family was furnished with funds sufficient to convey them to America. The tenantry upon that estate were called together; their attention was directed to the condition of the 312 property; it was shown to them that there was no possibility of so crowded a population continuing to exist upon so limited an extent of land. The plan for their relief, and for the improvement of the property which Lord Lorton proposed, was in its outline at least, communicated to them; those whom it was proposed to buy out were offered some 5l., some 10l., 15l., and even some 20l. These offers the several parties to whom they were made readily accepted and voluntarily signed a paper, declaring that acceptance, setting forth the sums they had received, promising a surrender of their holdings, expressing their thanks for the kind and liberal treatment they had experienced, and professing to be perfectly satisfied with the arrangement made for their advantage. Now he would ask was that House to be told that landlords were to make no improvements on their estates? Did the proceedings of Lord Lorton include some of the prohibited rights which landlords were no longer to exercise? Were they to look for the prohibition of these measures in the new edition of Captain Rock's code? Did he prohibit this species of improvement, as he did many others? But, be that as it might, of this at least he could assure the House, that the improvements which Lord Lorton effected in his estate were carried on without the least reference to the religious sentiments of the tenants whose cases those improvements affected. He fearlessly appealed to the hon. Member opposite who represented the county in which Lord Lorton resided, to say if he knew in any quarter of the country a better landlord than his noble Friend. It was perfectly well known that Lord Lorton never advertised any of his lands with the view of letting them at a rack rent, and there was no instance of his tenants voting at an election contrary to his wishes. [Cheers.] He perfectly understood that cheer, and he desired to ask the House whether they did not think it infinitely better that a body of tenantry should vote at the suggestion of a benevolent landlord than at the dictation of a domineering priest. The one was a natural source of influence—it was a natural relation, but the dictation and domination of an ecclesiastic—the threats of punishment in a future state, were a wholly different matter, and in his judgment could be neither justified nor even palliated. Again he would say that no more exemplary land- 313 lord existed than Lord Lorton; he maintained medical men at his own expense, he maintained schools for the education of the children of his tenantry, he paid annually 5,000l. or 6,000l. a year to labourers on his estates, and he kept upwards of 300 men in his employment. When he heard the charges made against his noble Friend he instantly wrote for information; but even in due course of post he could not today have received a reply; nevertheless, though not furnished with specific answers, he thought that with nothing but the circumstances already before the House he could expose the injustice of the accusation preferred against Lord Lorton in the particular case brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. In his opinion it was plain from the document itself that there was not the least ground for the accusation, although the circumstances were stated in a manner most adverse to his noble Friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman read the statement already published [see ante p. 114] respecting the case of the widow Murphy, and observed that from this statement it clearly appeared that the son, acting on behalf of his mother, had signed an agreement to surrender the premises held by her, and that a sufficient consideration was to be paid for such surrender. When the proper time came, possession was delivered up, and to prevent the possibility of resumption on the part of the Murphys the roof was taken off the House. The widow and her daughter got in again, and from the scattered materials raised a hut, in which they resided, and this they did in utter disregard of the compact made for the surrender, according to which they were to receive a sum of money, and something in the way of an annuity. The agreement for a surrender constituted, in his opinion, a good equitable title, and he would appeal to any professional Member of that House on the soundness of that opinion. If the house had been pulled down upon the head of the widow and her daughter without any previous agreement, he should consider it a most unjustifiable act of barbarity, but he affirmed that nothing of the sort had been done. When they went back and took possession of the ruins there was no attempt to dislodge them, quite the contrary. It had been stated that there existed a lease. At the time that the Murphys agreed to give up the premises there was no notice whatever of the lease; 314 the existence of such a lease was unknown to Lord Lorton's agent; a note in writing would have been a sufficient surrender of that lease, which was a mere chattel interest, created by the party from whom Lord Lorton's relative purchased the property; there could therefore be no doubt that the lease was kept back for the purposes of fraud, and he had no doubt that a court of equity would have regarded the whole as a most iniquitous proceeding. No man who looked at the case could for a moment imagine that the action of ejectment would have been brought if Lord Lorton's agent had known of the lease. Let him call the attention of the House to the way in which the hon. and learned Member had stated his case, and the way in which it had gone forth to the public. The hon. Member had stated that the widow had a lease of which forty years were unexpired. Now there was not one tittle of evidence to support such an averment. He had heard every word of the statement to which the hon. and learned Member had referred, and there was not a word in it of forty years being unexpired. The hon. and learned Member had said, that the widow was required to give up her lease, and refused, but there was not one scintilla of evidence to that effect. The next statement of the hon. and learned Member was, that the landlord took a party to tear down the house. The landlord was not there, nor did he take any party, and it was not alleged in the statement that he was present. The evidence was, that the agent of Lord Lorton was there, and that there was no party. But the hon. and learned Member went on to say, that the widow and her daughter were borne away, weeping and screaming, and that the son at last signed a paper which he was assured would prevent his mother's house from being levelled with the ground. The son signed this at last! It was in the first instance, that the paper was signed, before a hand was laid to the house. But the son was assured, that his signature would prevent his mother's house from being levelled with the ground. No such assurance was given. But then the hon. and learned Member quoted the speech of the counsel employed against Lord Lorton. He admitted, that there was no variation in the speech of the counsel, but of course, that speech was given with all the partiality of representation which might be expected 315 from one who had received his instructions from one party instead of both. But, notwithstanding, with this speech the hon. and learned Member concluded his remarks, saying, "There is Lord Lorton for you, and there is the cause of the disturbances in Longford." They might make the most of what had really happened, when here was but one solitary instance which could be cited, and that owing to the blunder of an agent who had taken a surrender of possession when he might as easily have obtained a surrender of the lease. He trusted, under the circumstances in which he stood, not being in a condition to obtain by any possibility any answer from Ireland in respect to this charge, that Lord Lorton would meet with that fair allowance, that might be expected to be made towards a person whose generous conduct to his tenants was not easily equalled, and that the House would not be guilty of the injustice of imputing to him what had been imputed to him by the hon. and learned Member.
§ Mr. Frenchin reply to the call which had been made on him by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, stated, that although from political differences he did not even exchange the courtesy of a salute with the noble Lord, he could not as a matter of justice refuse to declare, that as a landlord, as a country gentleman, as a charitable, upright, and honourable man, Lord Lorton had not in that or any other country a superior. Since he (Mr. French) had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had purposely abstained from mixing in party debates, but as he was on his legs he trusted he should be excused for making a few observations on the subject then before them, if, indeed, his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland had left anything to be said on it. Outrage in Ireland had been almost universally of an agrarian character, a fact that was shown by every writer on the subject from Primate Boulton in 1727, to the Commissioners of Poor Inquiry who were appointed in 1834. The class employing labourers in Ireland was comparatively small, and efforts to obtain constant employment, even at the lowest rate of wages, were seldom succesful. The possession of a portion of land was until the passing of the Poor-law bill the sole defence of the peasantry against utter destitution, and they naturally clung to it 316 with the greatest tenacity. The competition for land was like the struggle of drowning men for the single plank which was between them and destruction, and actuated by the one overpowering influence of self-preservation, they were equally regardless of the injustice to others by which it might he worked or maintained; such was, he contended, the history of the agrarian outrages of Ireland. It was clearly shown before the Poor Inquiry Commissioners, that it required privations little short of destitution, or the approach of destitution itself, to urge the people to crime, and many proofs were given of their great submission and patient endurance under the most afflicting distress. He, however, fully agreed with his right hon. Friend by whom the motion had been brought forward, that the state of the peasantry of Ireland was not what it should be, and with him he deeply lamented their familiarity with scenes of violence and bloodshed, and their tendency to avenge, through combination, their private wrongs, all which must lead to the formation of reckless habits, and an utter disregard of the law. But he entirely differed with him as to the causes which had produced the circumstances they equally deplored. The House had in the earlier part of the debate heard much of the ferocity of the Irish peasantry; but the picture was an overcharged one; nowhere was the social virtues more prevalent than amongst them; the dark features in their character were the result of circumstances for which they were not answerable. The Irish peasant might be as had been stated, reckless of legal obligations, and regardless of social observances, for he had found the law was not his friend, and from society he had derived no advantages. Ejected from his miserable cabin, if a farm was to be consolidated, without a prospect of provision for his starving family, he might be told he had nothing to complain of—that everything had been done according to law. Possibly it might have been, possibly it might not have been so; but would famine be less wasting because the law had been satisfied? Was it to be wondered at, however it might he deplored, that the outcast tenantry should enter into combinations, when despair was their bond of union, and the pangs of hunger their sharp incentive to vindicate the great law of nature against that of the statute-book? 317 How could the lex scripta be enforced, when it was opposed to that so eloquently described by Cicero, the "lex non scripta sed natas, quam non didicimus sed ex ipsa natura transimus, ad quam non docti sed facti sumus." Now, he would ask under circumstances such as these, under clearances of estates, scenes disgraceful to the country and which had been so ably described by the late Mr. Sadler, could it be a matter of surprise, that the code of Captain Rock should have superseded that of the Queen? They had also heard much of the little regard of the peasantry of Ireland for the rights of property; but even at the hazard of offending hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would ask, with Mr. Drummond, had property no reciprocal obligations for the protection afforded it by the law? Did it not owe in its turn, protection against destitution to those by whose labour all property was created, and had property in Ireland discharged its obligations to the poor? Was it not a fact, that during the last fifty years the rental of that country had more than trebled, whilst the poverty of the cultivator of the soil had increased? Let them read the description of the present state of the Irish poor furnished by the Commissioners of the Poor-law Inquiry, and contrast it with that given by Arthur Young in 1776 and 1779, and they would find, that their condition had considerably deteriorated. It was also, he regretted to say, proved by the more frequent recurrence of fever and famine amongst them. So far from the Irish peasant being savage, he was convinced, that the English labourer would not have submitted to half the privations he had suffered without displaying far greater violence. History showed them, that when the population of this country were undergoing the same state of transition in which the people of Ireland at present were, they were guilty of far greater excesses. In a paper in Strype's Annals, written by a magistrate of Somersetshire, they would find that in one year (1596) in that single county, forty persons had been executed for felony, thirty-five burnt in the hand, thirty-seven whipped, 183 discharged; and that, notwithstanding the great number of indictments, not one-fifth of the felonies committed were brought to trial. What, he would ask, was the state of Ireland, bad 318 as it might be, compared to this? Banded societies of desperate men loose on society in England were restored to order by the passing of the Poor-law Bill in the reign of Elizabeth, after all other means for the suppressing of tumult which the most arbitrary laws and the most cruel executive could devise or accomplish had been tried in vain. The Poor-law of Elizabeth, combined with an extensive system of public works, repressed outrage, and was followed by the greatest improvement in the condition, habits, and intelligence of the people. Like causes would, he trusted, produce like effects in Ireland, and for this consummation they would be indebted to her Majesty's present Government. They had given Ireland a Poor-law, and were about to introduce measures of great practical benefit to that country; nor should it be forgotten that by their means a system of governing by and for a party had been relinquished, and oppression, sanctioned under the sacred name of law and religion, had given way to the paternal policy of promoting the best interests of all classes of the people. They had made justice their rule of action, and were amply repaid by that homage which justice had ever commanded from the Irish people. It was true they had not been able to redress the accumulated wrongs of centuries during their short tenure of office, nor bring the former recipients of power to acknowledge that their own true interests were best promoted by making equal and impartial justice and a perfect community of civil right the basis of Government. But he was entering on this subject further than he desired or intended. The matter in dispute was the conduct of Government. This might be an English, might be a Scotch question, but could hardly be considered an Irish one. The Lord-lieutenant was English, the Chief-secretary was English, the Under-secretary was Scotch, the Archbishop of Dublin was English, the head of the constabulary was Scotch; the Poor-law Commission, the head of the coast guard, the head of the Treasury, the chief Commissioners of Public Works, all were English. In fact, the head of every department in Ireland was either English or Scotch, and he did not feel as an Irish Member, that he was called on to stand forward in their defence, nor should he have interfered in the debate had it not 319 been for the call made on him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He was not desirous of continuing this debate, as he felt it was the duty of every Irishman to bury in oblivion the memory of those wretched feuds which had been a disgrace and discredit to that country.
§ Colonel Vernersaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had dared any Member to show that the Irish Government had acted unfairly in regard to prosecutions. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had also expressed his satisfaction at the vigilance and activity of the professional gentlemen who were employed on the part of the Crown. He had never doubted their vigilance or activity. On the contrary, he thought that in many instances they had shown too great a degree of vigilance and activity, but he did doubt their impartiality. In answer to the hon. and learned Member he would state a case which had come within his own knowledge. An inoffensive young man had been murdered not long since in the streets of Armagh. His crime was assisting to chair the individual now before them, and shouting for Verner. It appeared in evidence, that while the murder was perpetrating, his murderers said, "You shall never assist in chairing Colonel Verner again." Now, what was the conduct of the Crown upon their trial? All the respectable people in Armagh who were in the habit of acting upon petty juries were set aside, and a packed jury was obtained. The announcement of the verdict, which of course was one of acquittal, was received by the mob with shouts of "Down with Verner," and "To hell with Jones." The riot raised was permitted to continue till morning, and neither the magistrates nor the police made any attempt at interference. Thus much for this case. He had also received a letter from a most respectable person in Armaih, who stated, that in twenty-two months no less than fifty-three persons in the county gaol had had their punishments remitted either wholly or in part, and one man who was sentenced to be hanged, and the day of his execution fixed, was turned out of the gaol under the orders of the Lord-lieutenant. And yet this man had been guilty of a cold-blooded murder without any provocation! Without any provocation did he say? Oh, yes, there was provocation; for the mur- 320 dered man was a yeoman, the son of a yeomanry officer, a Protestant, and, what was, perhaps, provocation more than all, a supporter of Colonel Verner. He had asked the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, some time since, respecting his knowledge of the existence of Riband societies in that country. The substance of the noble Lord's reply was, that no information respecting the existence of such societies had come either to his knowledge, or to that of the Irish Government. He was surprised at receiving that reply, especially after he had read a speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, stating that he had been instrumental in putting down more than forty of those societies, and after he had seen a statement, declaring that prosecutions had been instituted by the Crown against members of these societies in Westmeath, Roscommon, and several other counties in Ireland. He had also seen the affidavit of a policeman, deposing to the fact of having met a large body of them going about armed at night, regularly trained and disciplined, to the great terror of her Majesty's loyal and peaceable subjects. He contended that it was the duty of her Majesty's Government, at all hazards, to put down these societies, and insisted that her Majesty's Government, in not dealing severely with them, had been guilty of a breach of faith towards himself and other leading members of the Orange Association. The House would perhaps recollect, that at the close of the debate on that Association he had asked the noble Lord, whether if we dissolved it, Government would put down all other political societies in Ireland, and to that question the noble Lord had given a reply in the affirmative. The members of the Orange societies had thereupon come forward, in accordance with those principles of loyalty on which they had always acted and, in obedience to the orders of their sovereign, had dissolved their different lodges. Scarcely had they done that, when the Roman Catholics formed other societies, in which they denounced the connexion between England and Ireland, the Established Church, and the Protestant religion. The Government not only sanctioned, but encouraged the principle of these societies, better known by the name of the General Association. He asserted that the Government encou- 321 raged that Association, and his proof of that assertion was the notorious fact that it had promoted some of its most prominent members to offices of great trust and emolument. For some reason or other which he should not pretend to conjecture, the hon. and learned Member had dissolved that Association; but immediately afterwards another, the same in everything but the name, had risen up in its stead. The noble Lord (Morpeth) had pointed out the danger of these political associations, but as the noble Lord had confined his efforts to mere words, he had deceived the Orangemen whom he had induced to relinquish their societies upon false pretences. The Government was much to blame for the mode in which they had interfered with the processions of the Protestant population, under the pretext of expediency and conciliation; and he could but speak in terms of great indignation to the conduct of a police officer, of the name of Duff, who had recommended the magistrates to make a lane with a piece of artillery through some Protestants who were marching in procession through the town of Charlemont. The magistrates were, however, too humane to act upon his recommendation. But what was the consequence? His advice came under the consideration of the authorities in Dublin, and from a police officer he was promoted to the situation of a police magistrate. On the very next 12th of July he was sent down to Dungannon, with the full power of giving such an order as he had before recommended to the magistrates, and of executing that order himself if need arose. Mr. Duff was allowed, however, to leave the town in peace; but, as if to try the patience of the people, he was sent down again the next 12th of July, to prevent the people from walking in procession, and from performing the ceremonies to which they had been long accustomed. This led to much irritation, and created an impression in the neighbourhood, that the Government was resolved to abandon the Protestants to the tender mercies of their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen.
§ Sir C. Stylerose, and was maintaining that under former Administrations there was less security for property than now existed in Ireland, when the House was counted out.