The Marquess of Westmeath, in moving that certain papers laid on the 433 Table the other night might be printed, took the opportunity of observing, that as respected the individual to whom they related, they were, perhaps, not of public importance; but as they tended to show the jesuitical fraud and falsehood of a certain party in Ireland, in their attacks upon the local proprietary of that country, attacks made for the sake of influencing the conduct of the Government towards them; and as they related also to the attempts to mislead the public, to produce divisions between landlords and tenants—the connexion between whom it was the object of this party to break up, might be justly considered as a valuable sequel to the papers now on the table relating to the Coercion Bill.
The Earl of Stradbroketook that opportunity of making some remarks on a statement that had been put forth relative to a murder committed upon some property that now belonged to him. From the manner in which that statement was made, every man of common sense would suppose that he was the individual alluded to. He had, therefore, felt it his duty to make the hon. and learned member for Dublin acquainted with the fact, that at the time when that unfortunate occurrence happened, he was not in possession of the property. He did not rise, therefore, to defend himself from the imputations that had been cast upon him, for, from the circumstance he had mentioned, they could not affect him; but he was sure that their Lordships would entertain but a bad opinion of him if he allowed it to be supposed for one moment that there was one word of truth in the statements, so far as they related to his late revered father. Of his father he was entitled to say, that during half a century he had conducted the public business of his own county with the greatest honour to himself, with advantage to the public, and to the satisfaction of the country at large. As a landlord, he was kind, and generous, and just, and it was not possible for such a character to wish to oppress his tenantry. He should shortly state what were the facts of the case, so far as he was acquainted with them. About twelve years ago that part of the estate, on which the murder was said to have been perpetrated, fell out of lease. During the time the tenant held it, he placed an immense number of people on the land (who originally did not belong to the estate) upon the system of 434 under-letting, for the sake of putting money into his own pocket. Upon the lease expiring, these people were either unable or unwilling to pay any rent whatever. For three years no rent was paid to the late Lord Stradbroke; and he, therefore, exercised the right of ownership, by legally ejecting the parties from the estate, and letting it to a new tenant. He was bound to mention, that the learned member for Dublin did not make the statement on his own authority, but on evidence given before a Committee of the House of Commons; but the hon. Member endeavoured to make it a part of his argument, that this, as well as other murders in Ireland, were caused by the oppression of the landlords. He could not tell whether the man was murdered or not; but he knew, that the late Lord Stradbroke never exercised any oppression over his tenantry, and that he did no more than other landlords were in the habit of doing—that of maintaining his rights, as the owner of the land, by those means only which the laws of the country prescribed.
§ Viscount Clifdencould fully confirm the statement of the noble Earl who had just addressed their Lordships. The land consisted of about a hundred acres, and upon that sixty-three beggars had been let in as tenants. That, however, was the fault of middlemen, to whom the whole evil was attributable. He declared, that in other instances, as well as in this, the grossest exaggeration, in fact, parcels of lies were told of the landlords of Ireland—they were dictated by party nonsense, and were most shamefully spread by the Press. He begged leave to say, that Irish landlords not only did not do what was attributed to them, but they would not do it; even their own interest would prevent them. The land, however, being, by means of the sub-letting system, burdened by innumerable beggars, how they were to be got rid of was a difficult question. They must be ejected. But it was by this destructive system of under-letting, and by the perversion of facts to the injury of the landlords, that those who sought the separation of Ireland from England endeavoured to accomplish their object; and if the system was long persisted in, it would shake that country to the centre, and finally shake the empire itself.
The Marquess of Westmeathconcurred in what had fallen from the noble Lords 435 near him, but said, that the observation of the last noble Lord as to these falsehoods being spread by the Press, must be restricted to a part of the press of Ireland; for when falsehood get abroad, and was corrected, the Press of this country was as anxious to let the truth be known as any honest man in the country could wish it.
The Earl of Limerickadded his testimony in corroboration of the statement made by the noble Earl (Stradbroke) and said, that no man was a better landlord than the late father of the noble Earl. He described these attacks upon the landlords of Ireland as part of a system, the object of which was, to run down the landlords of that country for the purpose of dispossessing them of their property, and breaking up all the landed interest of the country. The same course had been pursued by the agitators with regard to the Church. The first step was to calumniate the unfortunate clergy, and make them out to be oppressors and tyrants. He would not say, that there were no bad men among the whole body of the clergy, but he would assert that they were generally most praiseworthy men. They were, however, first calumniated, then their persons were attacked, and then they were reduced to beggary. Such was the course, also, that was now to be pursued with regard to the landlords.
§ Motion agreed to.