Lords Sitting of 9 March 1847

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Desart, from the Relief Committee of Callan, for the Adoption of a more extensive System of Railways in Ireland.—From Newtownards, for the Establishment of one uniform Poor Rate in every Union in Ireland.—By Lord Monteagle, from Limerick, for the Abolition of certain Oaths required to be taken by Parties entering upon the Duties of certain offices.—From Guardians of the Helmsley Union, for Repeal of the Poor Removal Act.

IRISH PROCEEDINGS.
The EARL of LUCANsaid, that he was not in the House last night, when a noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) read a letter, relating to a part of Ireland with which he (the Earl of Lucan) was connected, which letter contradicted some observations which he had felt it his duty to make to their Lordships upon a former occasion relative to the issuing of certain processes in the county of Mayo. He trusted that their Lordships would not deem him out of order if he asked the noble and learned Lord whether he had any objection to give up the writer of the letter which he had read. He could positively declare that many statements contained in that letter were unfounded and incorrect. It appeared to him, that when a noble Lord read a letter in extenso in that House, he was bound to do one of two things—either to give up the name of the writer, or to make himself answerable for the contents of the letter. Now, he understood that, in the present instance, the noble and learned Lord refused to do either one or the other. He would take that opportunity of warning the noble and learned Lord not to adopt every statement he received or might read in a newspaper, and treat it as authentic. To his great astonishment he saw in The Times the other day, under the heading of "The Ministry and the Roman Catholic Clergy," some statements respecting himself. It might appear surprising that he should be dragged into a dispute between the Government and the Roman Catholic clergy; but it appeared that a body of the Roman Catholic clergy, assembled at Ballinrobe, on the 2nd of the present month, had agreed to a resolution which contained the following passage:—
"That we could not furnish to the world a more striking proof of the melancholy scenes of eviction
1074
and desolation daily occurring in this country, and aggravating all the horrors of famine, than some of us have witnessed on our approach, this day, to the town cottages on the property of the Earl of Lucan, stripped of their roofs, and the poor inmates cast out on the streets, and bereft of the comfort of dying in their own houses. The village of Gallowshill, in which this occurred, has a name of historic and ominous celebrity, which still—what a singular coincidence!—perpetuates the tragic scenes of death."
Now, as it happened, he had not any property within two miles of the town of Ballinrobe. But the village of Gallowshill was particularised; and their Lordships might suppose, that though there probably was some exaggeration in the statement made respecting it, there could be no doubt that a portion, at least, of the village had been pulled down, and a portion of its inhabitants turned loose upon the world. It happened, however, that upon the very day when the Roman Catholic clergy met at Ballinrobe, he was at the village of Gallowshill; and he now declared, upon his honour, that not one house in it was touched, not one person evicted from it, nor had any proceedings of that kind taken place there, to his knowledge, for a great number of years. His object in referring to that circumstance was to warn the noble and learned Lord against giving implicit credence to every statement which he might receive.
LORD BROUGHAMassured the noble Earl that it was unnecessary to warn him not to give implicit credit to every statement he received, or every word which he heard. The degree of belief accorded by him would depend entirely upon the judgment and credit of the person who wrote, and on the judgment and credit of the person who printed. He was much disposed, because he knew the noble Earl, to believe the statement which he had now made; and if the matter were to be fully inquired into, and the other party should have an opportunity of explaining, he might, perhaps, believe him more implicitly. It was always desirable that a person whose statement was contradicted, should have an opportunity of offering explanation. For instance, Captain Wynne, in a letter, charged two Members of the other House of Parliament with having quartered on the labour-rate fund—that was, upon the public purse—tenants of their own who rented considerable farms. Those hon. Members got up one after the other, and said that there was not a word of truth in Captain Wynne's letter, received and printed by the Government. In consequence of the declarations made by

1075
the two hon. Members, the Government referred the matter to Captain Wynne; some sort of inquiry took place, and they received a letter from the gallant Captain, reaffirming his former statements. It was impossible to doubt that the Government were satisfied of Captain Wynne's veracity, because they had not removed him from his situation, which it would have been their bounden duty to do if he had sent them a letter full of falsehoods. Notwithstanding, therefore, all the hon. Members of the other House had said, he (Lord Brougham) was bound to believe Captain Wynne; and yet the denial of those hon. Members was just as complete as any denial which the noble Earl ever saw. Now with respect to his statements last night. He made two statements: one was of a general nature, referring to a county which he mentioned; but he did not mention the name of a single individual, nor did he give any indication or clue by which their Lordships could suspect who were the persons alluded to in his statement. He was not bound to give up the name of his informant. He stated what he believed to be true, because the information came from persons who he knew would not willingly deceive any one; and at the time he declared himself satisfied with the credibility of the persons who had written to him. If he had taken another course, as he might have done—if he had stated that he had been informed of such and such things, and that he believed the information, without alluding to the manner in which it had reached him, could any one have called upon him to give up his authority? If he had attacked individuals, that would have been another matter. In one statement which he made, seven or eight individuals were named, and in that case he gave up the name of his informant, together with his address and calling in life, that being the editorship of a newspaper. No part of the statement which he made yesterday cast any reflection on the noble Earl, and therefore he was surprised that he should call upon him to give up his informant. As to the noble Earl's warning, it was hard to say what ought not to be believed after what had happened in Captain Wynne's case.
The EARL of LUCAN: Since the noble Lord refuses to name his informant, he will perhaps state whether he is a respectable person and worthy of credit?
LORD BROUGHAM: I made a statement fitting for me to make, and proper
1076
for the House to receive; and neither the noble Earl nor the House has any right whatever to ask a Peer to come to the question in this way. I will not give an answer. [An ironical cry of "Hear!"] I beg to inform noble Lords who cry "Hear," that they show an utter ignorance of Parliamentary proceedings. Since I first entered Parliament, which I am sorry to say was not yesterday—I have heard, over and over again, Peers and Members of Parliament refusing to give up the names of their informants, stating merely that they believed the statements which had been made to them; and every one knows, that from the time of Henry III., when Parliament first assumed its form, downwards, common fame has been held to be a ground for statements made in Parliament and proceedings founded thereon.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYpresented a petition from Newtownards, complaining of the present mode of rating to the poor. As an Irish proprietor, he was perfectly willing that Ireland should have an efficient system of poor laws; but he considered that there ought to be a fairer mode of rating than existed at present. Before he sat down, he begged to congratulate himself, and he hoped he might also congratulate the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), upon a fact which he hoped he would be indulgent enough to look to, and not continue his constant and eternal animadversions upon the landlords and people of Ireland—the fact, namely, that in the county with which he (the Marquess of Londonderry) was connected, the county of Down, the landlords had not asked a shilling of assistance from the Government, or a shilling from the presentment sessions; and that the tenantry had not applied to them for reduction of rent except in one single parish. He did hope that the noble and learned Lord would remember this fact, and not continue his sweeping attacks upon the landlords and people of Ireland generally. As an Irish proprietor, it was painful to him to hear such repeated statements against a body of men by many of whom in many districts they were quite undeserved. The difficulty, as had been observed by a near relation of his in the other House, was, that legislation adapted for one part of Ireland, did not apply to another. Yet the noble and learned Lord came forward with general statements, which were at all events totally inapplicable to those persons who had never asked the Government for a shilling, and to those

1077
parts of the country where the estates were well managed, and rents regularly paid. He alluded particularly to Ulster.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that if the noble Lord would insist upon being blamed whether he was blamed or not, he (Lord Brougham) could not help it. He had never said that all the landlords of Ireland were to blame; he had never made sweeping charges against them; on the contrary, he had confined himself to a few instances, and had expressed his hope and trust, almost his belief, that such cases were not general, and that they could not with justice be said to be general. But the noble Lord, nevertheless, got up from time to time, and said, "I will be accused, and nobody shall prevent it." It was the most extraordinary use of the words "will" and "shall" he ever heard of, except perhaps in the case of the man who said, "I will be drowned, and nobody shall save me." He (Lord Brougham) repeated, that he had never accused the Irish landlords as a body; but if the noble Marquess ever said again that he had done so, he would not deny it. The noble Marquess also complained that he did not give him information. Now, he was going to give him information, for he was going to move for a return of the names of the plaintiffs and defendants in all the processes for rent due at the 1st of November, 1846, which were brought to trial at the sessions of the 11th of January, 1847, held at Ballina, barony of Tyrawley, in the county of Mayo, with the orders made thereupon; also a return of all the processes for use and occupation of lands and tenements ending the same date, and for conacre for the harvest of 1846. With respect to what the noble Marquess had stated about the north of Ireland, he was glad to hear that that part of the country was in so favourable a condition; and as there was often a cry to have the full benefit of the legislative Union, and to have the same laws for Ireland as for England, he hoped that those landlords at least would not object to have the benefit of the same system of taxation as in England, particularly as regarded the assessed taxes, the income tax, and the land tax.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYthought the noble and learned Lord had no right to occupy the time of their Lordships with bad jokes, ridicule, and sarcasms, in order to turn away their attention from his general declarations. He (the Marquess of Londonderry) appealed to the judgment of their Lordships if the noble and learned Lord had not made the
1078
Irish landlords a sort of general butt; and then he got up, and with his special pleading, his volubility, and his bad jokes, attempted to show that he had not. If the noble and learned Lord went on in this way, the end of it would be that nobody would mind what he said. If he made such attacks upon other persons as he had done upon the Irish landlords, the noble and learned Lord would find that they would leave him in the contempt which such attacks deserved. With respect to what the noble and learned Lord had said about certain taxes, he (the Marquess of Londonderry) begged to say, from what he knew of the loyalty of the people of Ireland, that they would cheerfully submit to any taxes which Parliament deliberately imposed upon them.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that with respect to the contempt in which it seemed he had fallen with that House and the country — so much so, that no person would listen or attend in the smallest degree to anything he said—he could not help it; it was the common lot of mankind, senators as well as others. He could not, of course, hope ever to receive or meet with the same reception as the noble Marquess received when he addressed the House; but he was satisfied with the reception he got; and, if he were satisfied, the noble Marquess had no right to complain. If what he said was so very contemptible, he only hoped and trusted that the noble Marquess would take the usual means of showing his contempt, which was by letting him entirely alone, and which he thought would be the more prudent, as it certainly would to him be the more agreeable reception to give to anything he said. The noble Marquess had accused him of special pleading, volubility, and bad jokes; but what he had said about the Irish landlords was no joke: he had stated facts, though he denied that he had attacked them. It seemed, however, that the noble Marquess would not allow him to know whether he had accused them or not; and he had appealed to their Lordships to decide whether or not he had done so. He (Lord Brougham) had a great respect for their Lordships' judgment; and if they, in their wisdom, should decide that he had not attacked the Irish landlords, that he had only mentioned a few instances, and given them a little advice, then that would acquit him; but if, on the other hand, they should convict him, by saying that he had attacked the Irish landlords, then he would follow the example of that body, and

1079
"cheerfully submit," as the noble Marquess said they were prepared to do to the income tax; which, by the way, was more than could be said for the people of this country, for they made many wry faces at it, and the longer it continued they liked it the worse. But such, it appeared, was the blessing of the legislative Union, that the people of Ireland would be delighted to have it, if Parliament should only think it necessary.
The EARL of LUCANdid not at all deny, or pretend to deny, that there had been many processes for rent; but the letter read last night by the noble and learned Lord, as to 1,500 or 2,000 processes of ejectment, was a most extraordinary exaggeration, for which, he believed, there was no foundation whatever.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELwished that a return should be also obtained in reference to the alleged eviction of 400 tenants in a part of the county of Cork which the noble and learned Lord had abstained from naming.
Motion agreed to.
Returns ordered.
House adjourned.