The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-19 00:00:00

IMPEAIAL PARLIAMENT.

_

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 18.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his scat on the
Woolsack at Five o'Clock. _

Messengers from t!-e Commons brought up the
Mutiny Bill, the Marine Mutiny Bill, the Rum Duties
Bill, the South Western Railway Amendment Bill, and
several private Bills, which were read a first time.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY laid upon the table
the nine'eerth Report of the Inspectors-General of
Prisons in Inland.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented several peti-
tions from places in Scotland, praying for the abolition
of Church patronage ; and one from a place in
Scotland, praying for an alteration of the law of pa-
tronage. In the prayer of the latter, he fully con-
curred.

The Duke of CLEVELAND presented petitions
from Down, Stockton, and other places in Durham,
in favour of the Drainage of Houses Bill ; also a pe-
tition from a Surveyor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, pray-
ing for an atcration or repeal of the Corn-laws.
The Bishop of BANGOR presAited a petition from
the C:ergy of Angleiea, praying that the propos..el
union of the dioceses of Bangor and St. Asaph might not
take pl tee.
The Earl of ROSEBERY presented a petition
from some place in Scotland, in favour of a revision of
the Import Duties.
EAST INDIA RUM DUTIES BILL.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that the
East India Rum Duties Bill, which Lai that night been
brought up from the House of Commons and read a
first time, should be printed ; and he gave notice that he
should move that it be read a second time on Tuesday
next.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
The Marquis of NORMAN BY said that before
his Noble Friend opposite moved that the exa-
mination of Mr. Stanley be resumed, he thought it
right to state to their Lordships that he had received
a letter from Mr. Shaw Lefevre, one of the Poor-law
Commissioners, as to the omission of a paragraph in
one of the letters which had been hid before their
Lordships. That geLtleman stated that himself and
Mr. Lewis had locked over the returns, and that

they had approved of the omission of the para-
graph in question, as it had no relation wha'ever
to any matter connected . either with the election of
of Poor-law Goa*diaa for Cionme!, or to any proceed-
ings connected with the Poor-law. Their Lordships
had the letter ❑ow printed in their hands, and the pas-
sage in question merely stated that the writer had seen
the Attorney-General three fines, who had seemed
well disposed towards him, but that nothing bad been
done, and requesting that the person to whom the let-
ter was addressed would, it he saw the Attorney-
General, remind him. Under these circumstances, the
Poor-liw Commissioners had omitted that portion which
they considered a priv.lte letter. With regard to
Mr. Nichol,, that gentleman's return to Ireland
had been delayed for a few days, and he was gill
in London. He made that announcement in order that
any Noble Lord might have an opportunity of examin-
ing that gentleman if it should be thought requisite.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought he had
better appear at the Bar. One observation had struck
him forcibly as most important while the Noble Mar-
quis was reading the letter, it was this—it was obvious
from that letter that this Mr. Butler was a dealer in
politics, and if he recollected rightly, that on which
the Poor-law Commissioners for Ireland prided them-
selves—that which they had said over and over again,
was, We must take care to have nothing to say to po•

•
liticians ; and, with that letter before them, they up-
pointed this person. That showed how necessary
it was that the Act of Parliament should be
obeyed, in order that all the motives to these
appointments might be made distinctly apparent.
Their Lordships ought to have before them the whole
proceedings of the Board, so that they might know the
motives of the appointment, and what was the character
of the individual. The clause in the Act of Parlia-
ment was little obeyed in Ireland, and he was afraid
as little in England—(Hea-)—so that there was no
tracing any ac of the Commissioners, as every thing was
in their hands. In fact, they might do what they pleased.
Lord ELLEN BOROUG H entirely disagreed with
the Noble Marquis that the omitted paragraph was
unconnected with the appointment. He thought that
when Butler inserted the paragraph in his letter to
Mr. Phelan, what was in his mind was, that when Mr.
Phelan showed it to the Attorney-General, the latter
would say, " It is true he has been of use to me in Clon-
mel, and he is a very troublesome fellow. It would
be quite as well to get rid of him at once, and if you
can give him the pl ice, it would be a great relief to
me."—( A laugh.)
The Marquis of NORMANBY agreed with the
Noble Duke that the construction might be put upon
the letter that Mr. Butler was a partizan, and that it
was the duty of the Commissioners to select persons
for the office who were not partizans, if such could be
found in Ireland.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He believed
that Mr. Fennell, the opponent of Mr. Butler was also
well known as a partizan.—( Hear, hear.)
The Earl of GLENGALL assured the Noble Mar-
quis that such was not the fact.—( He ir, hear.)
The Marquis of NORMANBY had heard the
name very often in connexion with the party politics of

Clonmel.
Ttie Earl of GLENGALL—That was the name of
his brother.—(Laughter.)
The Marquis of NORMANBY had not known
that there were two Fennells, but he knew that there
was one of the name a partisan, if not two. There
was no proof at present that the Commissioners ever
saw the letter to Mr. Phelan.
Lord FITZGERALD said the witness Stanley
stated that the appointment had taken place upon the
recommendation of Phelan.—Heir.)
The Earl of GLENGALL said that Mr. Phelan
must have known that Mr. Butler was a politician.
He either proposed or seconded the Member for the
Borough of Clonmel.
The Marquis of NORMANDY said there was no
evidence to show that the Poor-law Commissioners
knew him to be a politician.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that. Mr.
Butler seemed capable of producing proof of an extra-
ordinary nature, for he stated to the Poor-law Commis-
sioners not only that he did not attend any political
mcetingv, but that he did not belong to any political
party whatever.
Mr. Stanley was then called in and his evidence
resumed.
By the Earl of GLENGALL—He held in his
hand the letter of Mr. Bagwell to the Poor-law
Commissioners, in which he stated that on minute
inquiry he had found that Mr. Butler was an unfit
person for the office of returning offixr of the Clonmel
Union, for reasons which he need not state. Mr. Nicholls
had seen that letter. Mr. Nicholls had been previously
in London, but he had returned by the middle of
March, and the letter was then shown to him. Mr.
Nicholls had written a letter to Mr. Hawley inquiring

into the qualifications of Mr. Butler, and stating that a
neutral man would be on all occasions best fitted
for offices under the Poor-law, and that party men
should be avoided. Mr. Hawley stated in reply,
in a letter which was dated from Tipperary, that
Mr. Butler was nephew of the Roman Catholic
Archbishop, Mr. Slattery, and that he had been strongly
recommended to them. He said that he was a re-
spectable person, and had been improperly complained
of by Mr. Bagwell, and that the complaint could only
have reference to the Prelate above-.mentioned. Mr.
Healey thought that his appointment gave general satis-
faction in Clonmel. The Commissioners directed Mr.
Hawley to inquire into the qualification of Mr. Butler,
and did not to his knowledge consult Mr. Phelan on
the subject up to that time. They had no Report but
that from Mr. Hawley.
By a NOBLE PEER—Nor had he any reason to sup-
pose that any other inquiry had been instituted.
By the Duke of WELLINGTON—Mr. Nicholls
had not at that time before him the letter from Mr. But-
ler to Mr. Phelan, dated February 6, 1839. His belief
was that Mr. Nicholls had never seen that letter until
it had been moved for in the return presented to the
House. It was then obtained from the Assistant-Com-
missioners.
By Lord ELLENBOROUGH—He could not say
at what place Mr. Hawley was when the letter of Mr.
Bagwell had been referred to him. He might have
been in Clonmel that day, and the next evening in
Tipperary. This letter was referred to Mr. Hawley on
the 14th. If it had been sent to any other place but
Tipperary, it would not have bean received by Mr.
Hawley until the 16th, the day on which he answered
it. The Commissioners stated in their answer that
they had made further inquiries. He believed they had
not made further inquiries, but they expected Mr.
Hawley had done so. He could not say how they
could have supposed that, as Mr. Hawley had done so,
lie not being in the place when the inquiry was to be
made. Mr. Hawley might have made inquiry in Clon-
mel, and returned to Tipperary on the 16th, and
written his letter on the evening of that day.
By Lord FITZGERALD—The Commissioners
had no idea that sufficient inquiry bad not been made
by Mr. Hawley.
By Lord ELLENBOROUGH—The Commis-
sioners, in their letter of the 18th, stated not only that
they had made further inquiry, but that they had re-
ceived strong recommendations in favour of Mr. Butler.
He believed the Commissioners had made no further
inquiries themselves, but they might have inquired
through the Assistant-Commissioners, who could have
sent them those strong recommendations. He could
not say whether Mr. Hawley applied to Mr. Bagwell
to know his reasons for stating that Mr. Butler was an
unfit person for the office. He could not say to what
parties Mr. Hawley applied for information.
By the Duke of WELLINGTON—He had no
actual knowledge of the fact of Mr. Butler having
compounded with his creditors, but he had heard it
stated. That fact was not known in the office of the
Poor-law Commissioners in Dublin. It was not (
clay to the Board. They had no statement of that
feint ih the inquiry, It WEIS not etated, he believed, by