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

Mr. Bagwell. Certainly it was not stated to the Com-
missioners in any way.
By Lord FITZGERALD—Mr. Bagwell stated he
was not fitted for the office for reasons be need not
mention. Mr. Bagwell is the principal owner of pro-
perty in Clonmel.
By the Earl of GLENGALL—He could not say
that Mr. Bagwell would be on that account the person
best fitted for knowing the qualifications of Mr. Butler
—other persons might be equally well informed on the
subject. He thought it was natural that the Commis-
sioners should have consulted the person who made the
complaint, and who was so well calculated to give an
answer on the subject. The Board had no conversa-
tion with Mr. Hawley with respect to the statement
that Mr. Bagweli's objection to his appointment was
founded on the fact of his being the nephew of the
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel.
Lord REDESDALE—Do you mean to assert to-
day that the appointment was made at the recommen-
dation of Mr. Phelan, before any recommendation
came from the Assistant-Commissioners of the Union ?
Witness—l think so.
And you, in the office, considered him as already
appointed when the recommendation of the Assistant-
Commissionerswasreceived ?

Witness believed that the appointment was made
primatily and chiefly upon the recommendation of Mr.
Phelan.

Lord REDESDALE—Come, now, I will have a dis-
tinct yes or no to my question.—(A liugh.) What I
want to know is, was the appointment made upon Mr.
Phelau's recommendation, without waiting for the letter
of the Assistant •Commissioner
Witness believed it was.
By Lord GLENG ALL—The selection made by the
Assistant-Commissioners was always ratified by the
Poor-law Cammissioners before it took place. Mr.
Phelan never made a report to the Poor-law Comrnis-
siocers, who received the recommendation from the As-
sistant-Commissioners. The Assistant-Commissioners
selected Mr. Butler, and, on their recommendation, the
appointment was made, as is usual in such cases. He
had no reason to suppose that Mr. Hawley inquired of
Mr. Bagwell his reasons for stating that Mr. Butler
was on improper person. The inquiries had been made
before the report of Mr. Phelan bad been received.
The letter of Mr. Hawley had no influence on the ap-
pointment. The appointment took place on the official
report of the Assistant-Cou.missioners, who were held
responsible for the appointinent, and for the proper exe-
cution of his duty by the returning officer. Witness
had seen Mr. Bianconi only twice in his life to his re-
collection. The general rumour was that Mr. Bianconi
was a reformer in politics ; had never heard that Mr.
Bianconi was a repealer. He was not aware that other
inquiries had been made except of Mr. Bianconi.
'time Earl of GLENGALL would not ask any more
questions on that point, but would proceed to another.
Witness then stated, in answer to questions from the
Noble Earl, that all the papers had been laid on the
table in the Returns of February and May last, but which
at that time were in possession of the Commissioner&
Was not aware whether any papers were now in the office
relating to the insolvency of Mr. Butler. Had heard
it said that he was in insolvent circumstances, but had
never heard that he had been actually an insolvent or a
bankrupt.
In answer to Lord GLENGALL, witness said that
the omission of a letter from Mr. Fennell, complaining
of the conduct of tee returning officer (Butler), in the
" mock election" of Guardians, was occasioned by the
negligence of the Clerk, who overlooked it in the
portfolio, from which he took the other papers.
Butler, whilst returning officer, was elected also
valuator of the Union, but the Commissioners
disallowed the election, and the Board of
Guardians appointed a person named Wall in his
place. Witness did not know that a letter from Ped-
der was received, stating that Wall was the brother-in-
law of Butler, and would merely act as his locum tenens.
Thinks it likely there was such a letter, for the Com-
missioners disallowed that appointment also. The wit-
ness read several letters that passed between the Poor-
law Commissioners and Mr. Fennell respecting the ep-
appointment of Mr. P. Wall as a valuer. The Com-
missioners thought he was as fit for the appointment
as he was to be Lord Chancellor of Ireland. They had
been included in the Return to the Houso from some
oversight. The protest of Mr. Fennel and others was
not in the Return, because they protested not in the
,
enaracter of Poor-law Guardians but as Magistrates.
Witness thought it extraordinary, that after the return-
ing officer was disallowed to act as valuator, his
brother-in-law, and afterwards his nephew, should bo
appointed to that situation. Did not think it necessary
to, make a full return on the subject ; merely selected
for the return what he thought necessary. Mr.
O'Donohoe was opposed to the appointment of Mr.
Butler. _ _

By the Marquis of NORMANBY—The date of
witness's appointment as Assistant Secretary was Au-
gust, 1838, when the Commission first came icto
operation. Throughout the entire of the time since
the Commission came into operation the pressure of
business was very great. There is no correspondence
with Mr. O'Donohoe on the subject of Butler's appoint-
ment as returning officer previous to such appointment.
If there had been, it would have beep included in the
returns. Mr. 0-Donohoe is not the Assistant-Com-
nnissioner of that union, therefore he did not think there
cowl be any such correspondence.
The Earl of GLENGALL desired that the witness
would search for such correspondence, and that, if any
such were found, it should be returned to the House.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that Mr.
Wordsworth, the clerk, and Mr. Nicholls, were both in
attendance if their Lordships wished to examine them.
He had observed that after a certain hour the attend-
ance became very thin, and perhaps it would be better
to fix a time for their examination.
The Duke of WELLINGTON wished the witness
to be re-called, and Mr. Stanley re-appeared at the bar
accordingly.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—Returns have
been ordered relating to the Naas Union—will those
returns be soon laid before the House ?

Witness—l will de all in my power to expedite them
on my return to Dublin, and I have sent off directions
by this night's post, for the utmost dispatch to be used
in the preparation of them.
The Marquis of NORMANBY, in reference to
what had fallen from the Noble Duke, begged to re-
mark, that in order to prepare those returns, the pre-
sence of Mr. Stanley was even more requisite in Dublin
than that of Mr. Nicholls. Perhaps if the House had
no further questions to ask, he might be permitted to
return. He would suggest that Mr. Wadsworth, the
clerk should be now called in and examine 3, and that
the examination of Mr. Nicholls should be proceeded
with to-morrow.
The Earl of GLENGALL would then take that
opportunity of putting a few more questions to Mr.
Stanley. The witness was accordingly recalled, and in
answer to questions from the Earl of Glengall, stated
that complaints had been received at the Office of the
Poor-law Commissioners of Mr. Butler's having refused
to deliver up to his successor the voting papers until
certain demands of his were complied with ; that in the
Unions of C!ogher, Tipperary, and Nenagh, the Com-
missioners had apppointed the High Constables as re-
turning officers, but that in the Clonmel and Cashel
Unions they had not ; Clonmel and Cashel returned
Members to Parliament.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH moved tha witness be
ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Stanley accordingly left the bar.
Lord ELLEN BOROUGH was sorry to interrupt
his Noble Friend, but their Lordships should recollect
the purpose for which the examination had been corn•
menccd, and although circumstances in the course of it
had transpired which might'wurrant his Noble Friend
hereafter in moving for a Select Committee to inquire
into the manner in which the Poor-law Commissioners
had performed their duty, or to move for a general exa-
mination at the bar on the subject, yet he submitted
that at present it would be contrary to the rules of the
House to go into a subject with which they had then
nothing to do.
The Earl of GLENGALL would not pursue the
examination of Mr. Stanley any further.
That gentleman accordingly retired, and
Mr. Wadsworth was called in and examined
By the Earl of GLENGALL—Witness was a clerk
in the Poor-law Commissioners'-office in Dublin, in Feb.,
1839. Did not copy the returns made to that House
in 1840. Thinks Mr. Armstrong did. Had been in
the office five years. Believes that the business of the
Poor-law Commissioners is carried on in Ireland very
nearly on the same system as in England. In Ireland,
and in England also, the answers to letters are some-
times noted on the back. Sometimes a draft of the
answer is made upon a separate sheet of paper. Com-
munications are made from th© Commissioners in Dub-
lin to the London Commissioners of all important letters,
and information received by the former. Did not
write the letter to Mr. Fennell on the 19th, but com-
pared it with the original draft. The letter exactly
corresponded with the draft. Witness himself tviotcti
the draft, but could not say from which of the Com-
missioners he received instructions to write the draft.
been
ati irn.
Butler Could not say whether be received instructions from Mr.
Phelan or not. There must haveb
knowledge
that
thenes
s w
officeleoud
previouswas
to
note
bet
tthe
w
s a to thehNen l 6
itth of e
Februaryn a
returningwn
officer,d v
but be (wit-
By Lord NORMABY—He believed be must
have received some verbal instructions to alter the re-
turn after he had received his instructions from Mr.
Earle. He could not state why Mr. Earle's order was
not obeyed ; he supposed that gentleman had revoked
his order.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
The Marquis of NORMAN B said, as Mr. Phelan
was ordered to attend the House on Monday next,
would their Lordships proceed with the examination of
Mr. Nicholls to-morrow,? They had almost all the
heads of the Commission in attendance, and it must lead
to public inconvenience;
The Earl of GLENG ALL would proceed with the
examination of Mr, Nicholls tomorrow.
The Hem then Adjourned nt Eigld o'clock.