HL Deb 21 July 1834 vol 25 cc207-11
The Earl of Limerick,

in rising to address a few words to their lordships, could assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it was not his intention to introduce any discussion that would long delay their Lordships from the consideration of the important Bill which now stood for a second reading; but he rose under the impression of, he acknowledged, exasperated feelings, at the gross misrepresentation which had been made elsewhere by a learned person, as to his character and his actions. This new system that had been lately introduced, of denouncing—for such was the only term he could properly employ—of denouncing certain individuals in terms he should not describe, was, he believed, of modern introduction, although in the reign of Charles 1st.——

Earl Grey

said, he understood the noble Lord to complain of something which had been stated in the House of Commons; now it was impossible for their Lordships to entertain such a matter. If the noble Lord had seen anything stated of him in any publication, his Lordship might, perhaps, be able to make a complaint as against that publication: but, however anxious the noble Lord might be to vindicate his character, if such vindication involved an allusion to what had taken place in the course of the debate in the other House of Parliament, it would be a violation of their Lordships' orders.

The Earl of Limerick

said, that he had purposely abstained from mentioning the House of Commons. He had alluded to what had taken place elsewhere, merely as a matter of history, in order that he might avoid the objections of the noble Earl. If the principle on which such attacks were made on individual Members of their Lordships' House was not counteracted, it might lead to the abolition of that House, and to the overturning of the Throne. If it were necessary, he would say, that he had read the statement in a newspaper. In that newspaper he was represented as having, in his character of landlord, impoverished and depopulated a considerable part of Ireland. It was alleged, that he had driven 200 families from their farms, and that those 200 families comprised 1,000 individuals. He would ask, whether any of their Lordships would choose to rest under imputations like this? What was the truth? If the statement were tried by that test, it would be found that these 200 families, comprehending 1,000 persons, who had suffered from ejectments, would be reduced to eleven individuals. The people of Ireland had been instructed that rents were no longer to be paid to absentee landlords, and some of them were very ready to accept of such instructions. The consequence was, that not one shilling of rent could he get from these gentlemen; he, therefore, had recourse to ejectment, and they were ejected. Some of their Lordships were, perhaps, not aware, that in many cases, land in Ireland was held by joint tenantcies; and it became necessary, in ejecting to recover possession, to eject the whole of those who had possession. This was his case, and this it was which had become the ground for the misrepresentation that had been directed against him. He was the last person in the world to bring, unnecessarily, any complaint before their Lordships, but if the imputations which had been thrown out against him were true, he was unworthy of a seat in their Lordships' House, or to hold a place in civilized society.

The Marquess of Westmeath

said, he happened to be in the same boat with his noble friend. A similar charge to that made against his noble friend, and proceeding from the same quarter, had been made against him, the only difference being in the proportion, that his landed possessions were less than those of his noble friend. It was, however, alleged against him, that though he wanted the power, he had all the disposition to use the power mischievously. He denied the charge. He would appeal to their Lordships, whether he was an individual who would disturb a whole country for the sake of replenishing his purse. Yet such were the allegations indulged in by that celebrated orator, who had for several years vomited forth cataracts of aspersions against those who were politically opposed to him. He had intended to bring the transaction out of which the charges rose, which had been made against him by the hon. and learned Gentleman, under the consideration of the House, and with this view he had requested the noble Viscount, who was then the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to produce certain papers relating to the county of Westmeath. On the late changes taking place in his Majesty's Government, he did not press that Motion. When he saw the attack which had been made on him in the other House, he regretted that the papers were not upon their Lordships' Table, because if they had been, they would have completely refuted the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. As to what the hon. and learned Gentleman bad said of him, looking at it as a personal matter only, he should really be disposed to treat it with the utmost contempt. He should, indeed, consider it a disparagement to be complimented by the hon. and learned Gentleman; if he obtained the hon. and learned Gentleman's good opinion, he should instantly have doubts of the soundness of his own integrity. The circumstances in question, though stated to have been taken from a newspaper, were, in fact, sent to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland in a letter, surreptitiously, as had come to his knowledge by the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman had submitted the papers to him, and thus he had the opportunity of knowing how he had been calumniated, and of refuting the calumnies. He did not consider this merely an attack on an individual; it was part of a system which was adopted against classes —against Magistrates, clergymen, and policemen. The latter were charged with shooting the people, and the clergy and landlords were charged with extortion. All this had its effects in this country as well as in Ireland. He would show the sort of argument it led to. [The noble Marquess read a passage from a London evening paper, to the effect, that the Tories were furiously opposed to the omission of the clauses in the Coercion Bill, relating to meetings, and asking, whether the Tory party wanted the Coercion Bill for the protection of landlords in Ireland, such as were described the evening before by Mr. O'Connell.] He wished to know, whether he and others who resided in Ireland, were not exposed to the knife and dagger of the assassin by these proceedings? He should feel it Ins duty never to hear statements of the kind without contradicting them if it were possible. The circumstances respecting him were false from beginning to end. Some years ago he came into the possession of an estate in Westmeath. On one occasion, before the passing of the Protection Bill, a party, brought from fifteen miles distant, came to Westmeath to beat his keeper, whom these assassins punished so severely, that they left him for dead. He could not prove that the individuals in question did take a part in these transactions, but one or two persons against whom warrants were out, he did eject. During the twenty years that he had possessed the property, he had never received one farthing of their money, and at the time they were ejected, a present was made to them equal to two years' rent. There were some whom he supposed to have been misled, and to have been the dupes of the leaders, and he offered them four acres of land each, but they would not take it. The affair was then taken up by the political priests of Ireland —by one of that body of separatists who had no interest in society, and never could have—who were the agents of the system of agitation. By one of those personages a letter was addressed to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, in which he said, "It was no wonder that such landlords as those required the Coercion Bill,"—imputing to him (the Marquess of Westmeath), that he was one of the principal landlords in that part of the country, who was in favour of the application of the Coercion Bill. So far, however, from laving been a party to it, he was absent at the time, and it was done without his knowledge. The noble Marquess concluded with moving for certain papers relative to the state of Westmeath.

Viscount Melbourne

requested the noble Marquess to postpone his Motion till to-morrow, that he might have an opportunity to examine the papers. Some of them, he had heard, contained details which it was not desirable, in the present state of Ireland, to lay on the Table of their Lordships' House. If allowed the opportunity of examining the papers, he would endeavour to select such portions of them as related to this transaction.

Motion postponed.