23 March
1836 Commons Sitting
Carlow
Landlords.
HC Deb 23
March 1836 vol 32 cc506-14 506
Mr. Wallace
presented the following Petitions from 350 individuals, the tenants
of the hon. and gallant Member for the county of Carlow:
Petition of
John Alexander Relating to The County of Carlow Election.
"A
Petition of John Alexander, of Milford, in the county of Carlow, was
presented, and read; setting forth, that the petitioner has read
with great astonishment in the public papers a petition presented to
the House by the hon. Member for Greenock, accusing the petitioner
of having used harassing and ruinous measures wantonly as a landlord
towards his tenants, and committed acts meriting the reprehension of
the country at large; that the petitioner humbly but earnestly prays
for public inquiry into the particulars of these statements, as he
is anxious of having an opportunity of refuting such calumnies
against his character; at the present the petitioner, unwilling to
intrude on the House, except as far as necessary for the vindication
of his character, humbly declines entering into any detail further
than to state in reply to that part of the petition which accuses
the petitioner of having ruined his tenantry by vexatious modes of
litigation; that he was forced to recover, by legal proceedings, the
tithe for which he had become liable under Lord Stanley's Bill, and
which his tenantry had declared three several times most positively
that they never would pay, although not demanded by the petitioner
till upwards of four months from the day it became due; the amount
of the costs returned by the petitioners' law agent was £2. 15s.
which, the petitioner thinking too high, actually remitted £1. in
each case, leaving only the sum of £1. 15s. to be paid by each as
law cost; this is the total amount of their expenses which have been
stated to the House as ruinous; the petitioner begs humbly to remind
the House that the farms leased by him to the persons whose names
were affixed to the petition against him, were declared on oath
before the Committee of the House in August last, on the Carlow
petition, by three several witnesses (respectable in appearance) to
be worth one-half more than the rents for which the petitioner
leased them, and in several instances more than double the rent,
though the leases are but five years in being; the petitioner,
therefore, considers himself most fully justified in enforcing the
payments of his just and moderate rights, which his tenantry most
directly and most distinctly refused to pay three different times;
the petitioner never acted as his own bailiff, nor never served his
tenantry with any law process or law paper whatever; the petitioner
prays humbly for strict and immediate investigation into all the
circumstances of the case."
He (Mr.
Wallace) believed Mr. Alexander to be a gentleman of the highest
respectability, and much beloved and esteemed in his neighbourhood.
He then presented a petition from an English gentleman resident in
Carlow, of the name of Woodcock, complaining of what he considered
the tyrannical conduct of Colonel Bruen towards his tenants. On the
motion that this petition be brought up,
Colonel Bruen said, he scarcely felt himself called upon to make any
reply to the statements contained in the petition from Mr. Woodcock.
As, however, that gentleman was an old acquaintance, he would say a
few words, more for the sake of letting the House know who the
petitioner was, than by way of entering into any explanation of the
reasons why he (Colonel Bruen) had chosen to ask a tenant for his
rent, or making any apology for so doing. He would, however, first
just mention that the animal rent payable by the tenant whom Mr.
Woodcock had taken under his protection was £83. 12s., and arrears
were now due by him to the amount of £185. 19s.
The petitioner stated, that promises were made to the tenants in
debt to their landlords (a pretty numerous body), though with the
greatest caution, that their arrears should be forgiven if they
voted for the Tory candidates. Now, all he (Colonel Bruen) could say
on this point was, that so extreme were the caution, prudence, and
circumspection used in communicating this secret to such Members,
that he for one never heard of it before—and if he had been
entrusted with the secret, assuredly be would not have been a party
to the agreement. If he were disposed to speculate in a matter that
had since been found so safe and easy, and not unlawful, he
certainly could have obtained votes on better terms.
This Mr. Woodcock was, as he had already said, an old friend of
his—he was one of the very few persons that in the course of his
life he had been obliged to prosecute for poaching—and to this
circumstance, no doubt, was he (Colonel Bruen) indebted for the
honour now conferred on him by the allegations set forth in this
petition. He had heard that this Mr. Woodcock was on the half-pay of
some dragoon regiment, and if unceasingly inflaming the bad passions
of the multitude, haranguing and urging them on to violation of the
law, heading tithe and election mobs, and keeping a remote and
extensive district for years in a state of terror and disturbance,
were services in which those receiving half-pay should be employed,
no person earned it better than Mr. Woodcock.
With respect to Mr. Alexander's petition, it was unnecessary for him
to say much; indeed, he would only refer to a single point. Mr.
Alexander complained of having been accused-of ruining his tenantry
by vexatious litigation. The facts were these—he became responsible
for the tithe—be let his land accordingly, reducing his rent in
proportion, and so had given full value for the tithe to the
tenants. They, of course, thankfully undertook the payment of a very
moderate rent. However, they were prevailed upon, or obliged, after
a time to refuse. Mr. Alexander, after repeated friendly
applications on his part, and resolute refusals on theirs, and after
waiting for months, at length was obliged to institute legal
proceedings. Even then, his kindness and good nature were
conspicuous; for after all this he prevailed upon them to go in a
body to Carlow during the quarter sessions, and take the advice of a
counsel professing very liberal opinions.
The consequence was, that they returned satisfied of the folly and
illegality of their conduct, and paid his demand. Mr. Alexander
forth with stopped the legal proceedings, and finding that each had
incurred costs to the amount of £2. 15s. he came forward and paid
out of his own pocket nearly one-half for each. For this most
uncalled-for, and it would seem, ill-judged act of generosity, these
very tenants now assailed him as a tyrannical landlord. In
conclusion, he begged publicly to express his thanks to the numerous
petitioners who had come forward to relieve him from the unjust
attacks by which his character had been assailed.
Mr.
Hardy was desirous of taking this occasion to explain some part of
the conduct he had pursued on a late occasion. He had then been
pointedly alluded to by the hon. Member for Dublin; and he should
have replied at the time, but for the retirement of that hon. Member
from the House. The hon. Member had complained of an assertion made
by him, viz.—that the hon. Member had received a copy of the
petition from Bath before it was in his hands. He had been informed
that such was the fact. He had letters to prove that a printed copy
of the petition from Bath was sent to the hon. Member for Dublin;
and if he had not received it, it was at this moment in the
dead-letter office. The hon. Member had also remarked, that it was
extraordinary that he had brought forward the case, as they had
formerly met in the Temple. He remembered meeting the hon. Member in
the Temple; but he did not remember that they had ever been at the
chambers of each other.
Mr.
Warburton spoke to order; submitting that this course was
inconsistent with the rules of debate.
The
Speaker decided, that any reply to what had been said in a former
debate was undoubtedly irregular.
Mr.
Hardy urged that he was only pursuing a course due in justice to
him-self. He had understood that he was to be afforded an
opportunity of explaining certain matters with which he had been
charged. The hon. Member for Dublin had accused him of having been
guilty of bribery at Pontefract. He could only say—
Mr.
Warburton again interposed.
Mr.
Hardy could only say in explanation of his conduct that he had lost
his election.
Sir J.
Wrottesley spoke to order.
Mr.
Hardy rose, but could not proceed on account of the cries of Chair!
and Order.
The
Speaker again decided that the course the hot). Member was pursuing
was irregular, although the House might grant him the indulgence of
being heard.
Mr.
Hardy hoped, then, that the House would grant him the indulgence.
Mr.
Methuen complained of this delay of public business.
Colonel
Perceval thought the character of an individual Member a paramount
subject. It might be irregular to refer to former debates, but he
had never known the House refuse to a Member who had been attacked
an opportunity of explanation. The hon. Member for Bradford would
have vindicated himself on the former night had not the hon. Member
for Dublin retired. He only claimed for the hon. Member for Bradford
the usual courtesy.
Mr.
O'Connell When the Hon Member claims courtesy, he should take care
that he shows it himself. I did not retire to prevent the Hon Member
for Bradford from making a speech, but I withdrew at the suggestion
of the Speaker.
Mr.
Hardy rose amid cries of Chair, Order, and Hear. He was prepared to
meet the hon. Member for Dublin at any time. With regard to the
Pontefract election, he hoped that the hon. Member's veracious and
sapient informant had also told him that he Mr. Hardy lost his
return because he was the advocate of Catholic Emancipation. He
hoped that the informant had also stated—[the hon. Member was
inaudible from the interruption. Considerable confusion ensued,
which lasted some time.] The hon. Member then stated he had
understood not only from the other side of the House, but from the
lips of the Speaker, that the fit time for him to vindicate himself
would be when certain petitions were presented, and for that reason
on the former night he had sat down waiting for this evening.
The
Speaker agreed that he had told the hon. Member that he could revert
to the subject when the subject was again introduced. The subject
would again be introduced, and then the proper time would have
arrived, and not on the presentation of a petition.
Mr.
Hardy was perfectly satisfied.
Mr.
O'Connell said, that he did not mean to allude to what had fallen
from the hon. Member for Bradford [Cries of Spoke.] When he before
rose, he had only spoken to order, and not to the question of
printing the petitions now before the House. He did not mean to
oppose the printing of them, on the contrary, he had himself several
to lay before the House, which he hoped would also be printed. He
did not think it worth while to complain—he merely noticed that the
hon. and gallant Member, in defending himself, had had the
presumption (so he thought he might best call it) to introduce an
allusion to him. The hon. Member [had not yet been tried—he had not
challenged investigation, or said one word to show that he wished
for a committee to inquire. The hon. Member had not imitated his
conduct—he had not dared the production of evidence, and yet, after
the committee had made its report, he had presumed to throw out
insinuations against him. The motive was obvious, hœret laleri
lethalis arundo.
Some of the hon. Member's tenants had voted against
him, but none of Mr. Kavanagh's tenants had voted against him. What
was the reason? Mr. Kavanagh was an excellent landlord; his tenants,
Catholic as well as Protestant, supported him; but a number of the
hon. and gallant Member's tenants had voted against him. He would
pledge himself to no facts; but this he would say, that he was in
possession of documents which, if verified, would establish a case
of the grossest cruelty against the hon. and gallant Member. But he
and his friends were wiser than to court inquiry; they would shrink
from it. If the hon. and gallant Member had, indeed, so complete a
vindication, no man would more rejoice at it than he would. Yes, he
should rejoice at such a vindication, He perceived the sneer on hon.
Members' countenances, but it afforded only one more proof how
people judged of others by themselves.
He had always treated the
gallant officer, and even his prejudices, with respect; he would do
so still; and, he repeated, that no man would rejoice more at the
establishment of a complete vindication. If it were a calumny, let
it be defeated and exposed, and the calumniators punished to the
utmost extent of the power of the House. All he said was, that the
petitions contained allegations which demanded inquiry. He wanted to
know if the hon. and gallant Member had not let his lands at war
rents, and, giving no receipts, if any of his tenants voted against
him, did he not call upon them for arrears of those war rents? He
had no right to call for payment of those nominal rents because the
tenant exercised his franchise as his conscience dictated. He did
not assert that the allegations were true, but that their truth
ought to be investigated.
Colonel
Bruen could not help adverting to the manner in which the rules of
the House were disregarded by the hon. and learned Gentleman, while,
at the same time, he complained of others being disorderly. It
appeared, then, that the hon. and learned Gentleman might get up and
make attacks on the character of Gentlemen on his (Colonel Bruen's)
side of the House, and when they rose to vindicate themselves from
the aspersions cast upon them, they were interrupted by Gentlemen
opposite.
The
Speaker The hon. and gallant Member has already spoken on the
question that the Petition do lie on the Table.
Colonel
Bruen again repeated that the rules of the House had been sacrificed
by the learned Member in the attacks made by him. Was it impartial
justice, then, that a person should be interrupted when he got up to
defend himself? [cries of spoke.] He defied the threats held out by
the hon. and learned Member, and was fully prepared to vindicate his
conduct, and was anxious that the subject should be brought forward.
He had repeatedly urged the hon. Member for Greenock to bring
forward a Motion on the subject, and could not help complaining that
that hon. Gentleman had inserted his notice of motion at the bottom
of the list, instead of getting it placed at the top, as it should
be, involving as it did, serious charges against the character of a
Member of the House. He had no hesitation in saying that there was
no wish whatever to bring the subject forward. He challenged them to
do so, but he believed that they had no wish to do so. He defied the
hon. and learned Gentleman to the proof of the assertions he had
made against him.
The
Speaker The hon. and gallant Member is clearly out of order, as he
has already spoken on the motion before the House.
The
petition was laid on the table.
On the
question that it be printed,
Colonel
Bruen said, that he apprehended that he was in order in making an
observation on that point. He would then tell the hon. and learned
Member that the statements made respecting him were without
foundation. These were only a number of old stories which had often
been brought forward during the last four or five years, and had
repeatedly been shown to be groundless. He had no hesitation in
saying that the story about his persecuting his tenants in
consequence of their voting against him was totally false. The hon.
and learned Member had alluded to his hon. Colleague (Mr. Kavanagh)
as being a good landlord, and the consequence was, that he was
supported by the whole of his tenantry; but that was not the case
with him. He admitted that his hon. Friend was deservedly respected
as a good landlord; but it was notorious that many more of his hon.
Friend's tenants voted against him than his (Col. Bruen's) tenant's
voted against him.
Mr.
Wallace wished to assure the hon. and gallant Member, that he had
not brought forward the motion of which he had given notice, because
he had no opportunity of doing so; but he would arrange with the
hon. Gentleman, in the course of the evening, to fix on the first
convenient day.
Petition
to be printed.
Source:
HANSARD 1803–2005