CRIME IN IRELAND. (Hansard, 9 December 1847)

§ LORD FARNHAM
presented seven petions from different parts of Southwark and Lambeth, praying that measures might be adopted sufficiently strong to give security to life and property in Ireland. The noble Lord said, in presenting these petitions to their Lordships, which were signed by persons of great wealth, respectability, and intelligence, he begged leave for a few minutes to call their Lordships' attention to the contents of a letter which he held in his hand; it was a letter which was entitled to their deepest consideration. He did not feel himself at liberty to mention the name of the writer, because if he did, he should be certain that he would be furnishing one additional melancholy proof of the truth of the statement which the writer himself made in his letter, "that a man's life was not worth a day's purchase" in that country.

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
In that part of the country.

§ LORD FARNHAM
Yes, in that part of the country. He had handed the letter to the noble Marquess. He had told the noble Marquess who the individual was who had written it, and who his friend was who had received it, and placed it in his possession. And he felt that the noble Marquess would bear him out in the statement that it was above suspicion, and that the evidence coming from such a man, considering who he was and what he was, though he would not, for he dared not, mention his name, was entitled to their Lordships' confidence and attention. This respectable gentleman, in writing to his (Lord Farnham's) friend, said— It is with sincere regret and sorrow that I have to inform you that the Rev. John Lloyd, of Smith Hill, the parson of Aughrim parish, was shot dead yesterday evening about four o'clock, on his return home from officiating at his church, within about one mile of his residence. John Lloyd was one of the very best of good men, charitable, kind, and humane to all persons, without any distinction, esteemed and loved by his parishioners and neighbours. Living not many miles from him from my infancy, I never heard he intentionally offended or injured any person. I cannot account for this melancholy murder, otherwise than that he might have been mistaken for some other person, or that there is now such a thirst for blood that he was shot to intimidate others. What followed he (Lord Farnham) had 857 great pleasure in reading to their Lordships. It seemed that a very respectable priest had been attacked in some of the papers for having denounced Major Mahon at the altar. In other words, the delinquency of the Rev. Michael M'Dermott had been saddled on the Rev. Mr. King. He (Lord Farnham) was glad to have this opportunity of doing an act of justice, and he could assure their Lordships that no one could do it with greater pleasure to Mr. King. The letter went on to say— Having lately seen in the public papers that allusions were made to some priests who denounced the late Major Mahon from their altars, and having heard that the name of the priest of the parish of Aughrim, the Rev. Mr. King, was mentioned, I beg leave to assure you that the Rev. Mr. King and the late Major Mahon were at all times on the best terms, and intimate, and that Mr. King always spoke of Major Mahon in the kindest manner, and could not without my knowledge speak otherwise of him. There are over 300 families in this district who were tenants to Major Mahon, some of them owing from two to four years' rent. They were at all times treated with very peculiar lenity, neither harassed nor ejected, and to my knowledge Mr. King frequently told the people how very grateful they should feel for such indulgences. The state of this part of the country is indeed melancholy. Life is not worth a day's purchase. It is even dangerous to speak of Major Mahon's kindness to his tenants in this district. An intimate friend of mine has received a threatening letter denouncing him for so doing, and with his large family he feels miserable, and anxious, if possible, to leave this country.—I am, &c. All he (Lord Farnham) would say further was, that if he dared mention the name of the writer of this letter, their Lordships would be perfectly satisfied that his evidence was unimpeachable both with regard to the state of that part of Ireland, and as to the character of the two respected murdered gentlemen.

§ The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE
was bound to say that, for the sound reasons which the noble Lord who last addressed the House had assigned, he was perfectly right in not mentioning the name of the person through whom he received the letter that had been read to the House; and it was of course equally necessary that the name of the writer of the letter should not be divulged. The noble Lord had shown the document in question to him, and there could not be the least doubt that the name which it bore would impart the highest authority to any statement proceeding from such a quarter; the situation and independence of the writer placed any narrative or description that he might put forth quite beyond the least possibility of dispute. 858 His name was one of a class which, if mentioned to the House, would at once carry with it the entire acquiescence of their Lordships, both as to the accuracy of his facts and the purity of his motives.