MOTION FOR A PAPER.

HL Deb 04 April 1870 vol 200 cc1161-7

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

moved for, Copy of the Reports furnished to the Irish Government of Notices posted at and about the chapel of Kildare, calling for a meeting to discuss the conduct of the Duke of Leinster and his agent towards certain of his tenants, and of the meeting and the speeches made thereat after mass on the 25th March in the chapel yard. He was quite aware that the matter to which he referred might be deemed one of a private character, and not such as Parliament usually took cognizance of, and he would not have troubled the House with it if it had reference only to private affairs and the management of private property; but it related, in point of fact, to a subject which had been discussed in a meeting of the lowest class of the population, and in nearly every newspaper published in Ireland. And considering the present condition of Ireland, and the nature of the legislation before Parliament as a consequence thereof, he hold it to be a matter of the highest importance that their Lordships should be made acquainted of the real facts of this case, as connected with the state and condition of the relations existing between the landlords and tenants in that country, in order that their Lordships might I be better able to consider the nature and bearings of the measures about to be submitted to their judgment for the solution of some of the many difficulties that affected Ireland. Before he proceeded to detail the facts of the case which he desired to bring under their Lordships' notice, he wished to say that he was not there to presume to attempt any vindication of the character of the Duke of Leinster. The character of that distinguished Nobleman was acknowledged by all parties of all creeds and classes to be remarkable for great benevolence and patriotism, and for a high sense of justice and wisdom in the conduct of his private affairs. The same qualities of mind adorned his speeches when he took part in public affairs, which, unfortunately for the general interests of the kingdom, was very seldom. The case to which he would now refer was one of public notoriety in Ireland; and the particulars of it were published in all the Irish newspapers, and commented upon by several of their writers in such a way as to excite the worst passions and feelings of the Irish people. In and around Kildare there were certain lands belonging to the Duke of Leinster. About the middle or close of the last century leases of these lands were granted to a number of persons; and some of the undertenants, the present occupants, were persons of the lowest class of tenants. One of these leases expired on the 25th March last. A few days before that notices were posted upon the doors of the chapel of Kildare, by the authority of the parish priest, calling a meeting of the inhabitants, especially of labourers, on the 25th of March—Lady-day—or the Feast of the Annunciation, that day being one generally observed by the Roman Catholics with great solemnity. Now he was not about to assail the character of the Roman Catholic clergy. He had the happiness of knowing many of the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland; and, as a body, he could bear personal testimony to the many good services they had rendered to the public and in the interests of peace and order. He, for one, felt much obliged to them for their interference—not in private affairs—but in matters involving the general well-being of the population by which he was surrounded. There were, however, unfortunately, some exceptions to this general rule of conduct on the part of the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland—exceptions which became especially prominent during the last few years. The notice posted on the chapel of Kildare, and circulated in the neighbourhood of the town, was in these terms— The inhabitants of Kildare and its surrounding neighbourhood—particularly the lower classes—will hold a meeting on the 25th inst. in the chapel yard of Kildare, for the purpose of peaceably and legally taking such measures as are likely to give protection to the poor families who are to be dispossessed from their little homes on Saturday next, father Nolan will address the meeting. Now, this notice contained three statements—the first that the inhabitants were to hold a meeting in the chapel yard on Lady-day; the next was that some poor families were to be turned out and dispossessed of their holdings on that day; and the third was that the labouring classes were to attend the meeting, and to take such measures as were likely to afford protection to the poor families alluded to. But what were the real facts of the case? Every man in Kildare must or might have known that the leases would terminate on the 25th of March, and that no notices whatever to dispossess or remove any persons or family from their holdings had been, or needed to be, served by the Duke of Leinster, or any person acting on his behalf. For some time every effort made by the Duke of Leinster and his agent to improve the homes and conditions of those poor tenants had been rejected. Nevertheless, his Grace instructed his agent not to serve a notice to quit upon any one of the tenants, nor to say or do anything to them that could be construed into a menace, whilst pursuing his inquiries into the circumstances of every tenant—inquiries which were set on foot with the view solely of bettering their condition. Emigration was suggested in the case of the very poorest, upon the understanding that means would be furnished them to do so, and to better their condition in another country; but this offer was by some rejected. Now, so determined was the Duke of Leinster not to disturb any one of them without their own free will, that he even exposed himself to much unjust censure for allowing some of those people to remain in the wretched condition in which they were found. It was also to be observed that, according to the provisions of the Poor Law of Ireland, a landlord who contemplated the eviction of any of his tenants was obliged to send a copy of his notice to quit to the Poor Law authorities; and unless that was done, no notice to quit served upon his tenants would be legal. Now, nothing of the kind had been done in this case. Though he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) did not happen to know all the facts, yet he could venture to say that nothing of the kind complained of had taken place on the part of the Duke of Leinster. It should also be borne in mind that the neighbourhood where this meeting was called was by no means a quiet one; that it adjoined the county of Meath, and that in this county the agent lived. These circumstances should be considered when it was asked what was the object of assembling a meeting of labourers, and making these attacks upon the landlord and his agent. Now, it happened that this very gentleman who made an inflammatory speech at the meeting against the Duke and his agent was residing in a house which was given by the Duke rent free for the parish priest. His predecessor applied to the Duke for a house and grounds for the priest, and his Grace gave all he could give—the reversionary interest, subject to a merely nominal rent. This was not all; for fields were let to the priest at a rent far below what other people would have been willing to pay for them; but for the two-and-a-half years that Mr. Nolan had been in the parish he had not paid 1s. rent, and said that he would not pay any. Now, it did not look well for a defaulting tenant to assemble the people together and lay the case before them, at the same time misstating and falsifying the facts in every way likely to excite them. The matter had been treated upon in all the newspapers in Ireland, and he understood that it had also been reported upon to the Government. He wanted this Report to be produced, so that their Lordships might have before them official information upon the facts that he had stated; and, further, the whole thing was illustrative of the state of society in Ireland, and of the present condition of the relations between landlord and tenant, and of the position of persons having local authority, and the matter would be well worthy of their Lordships' study when they should be called upon to adopt permanent legislation for Ireland. Moved that there be laid before this House' Copy of the Reports furnished to the Irish Government of notices posted at and about the chapel of Kildare, calling for a meeting to discuss the conduct of the Duke of Leinster and his agent towards certain of his tenants, and of the meeting and the speeches made thereat after mass on the 25th instant in the chapel yard.—(The Marquess of Clanricarde.)

LORD DUNSANY

said, he quite agreed that it would be altogether superfluous to say one word in vindication of the character of the Duke of Leinster; but he might be allowed to say that the Duke's agent, Mr. Charles Hamilton, occupied a very responsible and a very; dangerous position in Ireland. His life had been placed in danger by the licence that Roman Catholic clergymen gave themselves in denouncing persons in his position. He (Lord Dunsany) was well acquainted with Mr. Charles Hamilton, the agent of the Duke, and also agent for other large properties. In all he was agent over not less than 100,000 Irish acres, and there was no man who less deserved the ill-treatment which he had received from the Roman Catholic clergy. He hoped that their Lordships would not think that it would be beside the question if he said something on the subject of those altogether indefensible altar denunciations. It had been stated from the Treasury Bench that in no civilized country would such outrages as those perpetrated in Ireland be permitted; but it should be said also that in no civilized country were such incentives to outrage permitted. The practice of priestly denunciations was by no means new. He had recently read in the evidence taken by the Committee on the Rockite Outrages, so long ago as 1821, the examination of a priest, who was asked whether he had not denounced a man from the altar who was afterwards murdered. He said he had; he denounced him on the Sunday and he was murdered on the Monday. If the reporter had been a Frenchman he would no doubt have added "great sensation." Since the introduction of the Peace Preservation Act a priest had been alluded to who had denounced a man from the altar, and who had since been mur- dered; and the murder of a station-master on an Irish railway had also followed closely upon a denunciation. The fact that a priest encouraged landlord murdering was really serious, and now that measures were under consideration for the pacification of Ireland it was time to consider also whether this barbarous practice should be tolerated any longer. The increasing endeavours of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland to exercise unauthorized powers over land, an instance of which may be found in the recent letter by Dr. Nulty, Bishop of Meath, ought to be checked. It was no slight thing that Mr. Hamilton, who was just, liberal, and business-like, should be forced to reside in Dublin in order to preserve his life. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration how far altar denunciations could be interfered with, and what steps they ought to take to put a stop to them.

LORD DUFFERIN

said, he did not rise for the purpose of prolonging this discussion. The character of the Duke of Leinster had been amply vindicated; but as the noble Marquess concluded his remarks by moving for Papers, it was necessary for him (Lord Dufferin) to state that no official information has reached the Government of the matter to which he referred, and if a police report of it had been presented, it would be impossible for him to comply with his request, because, as he had already explained on a previous occasion, it was not the custom to lay confidential police reports before Parliament.

LORD DENMAN

said, that on the Crime and Outrage Bill the late Lord Brougham, in 1847, had given it as his opinion that where an altar denunciation had been followed by the murder of the person denounced, the priest who had made the denunciation would be guilty of being an accessory before the fact. He thought that in disturbed districts under the Peace Preservation Act a provost marshal, as recommended by the poet Spenser, might have been authorized to execute summary justice on assassins; and allusion having been made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, on the noble and learned Judge of the Probate Court's (Lord Penzance's) Motion that evening, to the necessity for execution soon following a sentence, he might also refer their Lordships to the late Lord Brougham's opinions, in the same year, on confession and absolution, and the necessity of preventing all access by priests to criminals after sentences. This might seem very severe; but it must be recollected that assassins had sent their victims into the presence of their Creator without any time for thoughts of eternity; and it must be fresh in the recollection of their Lordships that some of the priests themselves had threatened to deprive those who voted in the last election, against their wishes, of both confession and absolution, and so they could not complain—especially as Lord Brougham declared that assassination had been put a stop to by Napoleon I., by Sir T. Maitland, and the Marquess of Wellesley by this step. He hoped that it would be long before the county of Kildare followed the example of the county of Meath.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

thought the noble Lord (Lord Dufferin) was wrong in stating that it was not the practice to lay Irish constabulary reports upon the Table. He had known instances of reports of this description of the most private nature laid upon the Table. It had formerly been the practice to refuse Foreign Office Papers on the same ground; but now that Department frequently printed even documents which were marked "secret" and "confidential." After what had been said by the noble Lord, however, he begged to withdraw his Motion.

Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

House adjourned at Seven o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.