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

MORNING EDITION

sent them those strong recommendations. Ile could
act say whether Mr. Hawley applied to Mr. Bagwell
to know his reasons for stating that Mr. Butler was au
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
Mated. That fact was not known in the office of the
Poor-law Commissioners in Dublin. It was not offi-
cially to the Board. They had no statement of that
fact in the inquiry. It was not stated, he believed, by
Mr. Bagwell. Certainly it was not stated to the Com-
missioners in any way.

By Lord FITZUERALD—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 bad no conrersa-
Con with Mr. Hawley with respect to the statement
that Mr. Bagwell's objection to his appointment was
founded on the fact of his being the nephew of the
It man Cathere Archbishop of Cashel.
Lord REDESDALE—Do you mean to assert to-
day that the appointment was made at the rezommen-
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-
Commissioners was received ?
Witness believed that the appointment was made
primarily and chiefly upon the recommendation of Mr.

Phelan:
Lord REDESDALE—Come, now, 1 will have a dis-
t' net yes or no to my question.—(A laugh.) What I
wart to know is, was the appointment made upon Mr.
Phelan's recommendation, without waiting for the letter
of the Assistant-Commissioner ?
Witless believed it was.
By Lord GLENG ALL—The selection made by the
Assistant-Commissioners was always rat;fied by the
Poor-1 rw Commissioners before it took place. Mr.
Phelan never made a report to the Poor-law Commis-
sionerr, 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
wag an improper person. The inquiries had been made
before the report of Mr. Phelan had 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-Commissioners, who were held
responsible for the appointment, 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 polities ; had never heard that Mr.
Bianconi was a repealer. He was not aware that other
inquiries had been made except of Mr Biancoui.
The Earl of GLENGALL would not ask any more
questions on that pia, 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 Commissioners.
Was not aware whether any papers were now in the office
relating to the insolvency of Mr. Butler. Had heard
it said that be 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
fie ,sion of a letter from Ma Fennel', complaiu'rg
of the conduct of toe returning officer (Butler), in the
" mock election" of Guardians, was occasioned by the
negl gecce of the Clerk, who overlooked it in the
portfolio, from which he took the other papers.
Butler, whist 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. Wi:ness 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 beam tenons.
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 top-
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 bad
been included in the Return to the House from some
oversight. The voted of Mr. Fennell and others was
not in the Return, because they protested not in the
character of Poord tw Guardians but as Magistrates.
Witness thought it extraordinary, that atter the return-
ing officer was disallowel to act es valuator, his
brother-itel tw, and afterwards 11;s nealiew, should bo
appointed to that situation. D:d not think it necessary
to make a fu 1 return on the subject ; merely selected
for the return whot he thought necessary. Mr.
O'Danoliee was opposed to the appointment of Mr.
Butler.
By the Marquis of NORMANBY—The date of
witness's appointment as Assista-it Secretary was Au-
gust, 1833, when the Commission first came is to
operation. Throughout the ent're of the time since •
the Commission came into operation the pressure of
business was very great. 'l'nere is no correspondence
with Mr. O'Donohce on the subjsat of Butler's appoint-
ment Its returning officer previous to such appointment.
If there had le ,n, it would have been included in the
retu tin Mr. 0 Don hoe is not the Assistant-Com-
aristener of that union, therefore he did not think there
coal ! be any such correspondence.
Tb E ,r 1 of GLENGALL desired that the witness
woilt se trch 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 observel that after a certain hour the attend-
ance became very Clic, 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. Seenley 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 do ill 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.
Toe 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 it 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-1, 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 re-called, and in
answer to questions from the Earl of Wengall, stated
that complaints had been received at the Office of the
Poor-law Commissioners of Mr. Butler's baying
to deliver up to his successor the voting papers. untiltherefused
certain demands of his were complied-with ; thatthe rcnorn.
Unions of Clogher, Tipperary, and N
oeungb
C :tables as re-
turningmissioners had apppointed the
Clonmel and Cashel
Cashel returned
Unions
they
Memters to Parliament.
had butaot
;tbcationinmetillheiagnd
1.1 moved the witeels be
Lord ELLENBOROUG_
ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Stanley n Gm. was sorry to interrupt
Lord ELLENBOR" • Lordships -
but theirshouldrecollect
his Noble Friend, l_ewf_tartrhaenbtari.iis
Noble Friend
ah the examination had been corn.
the purpose for whi
although circumstances in the course of it
menced, and accnelminigglhy:
had transpired which
for a Select C •
‘ommittee to inquire
hereafter in twin
gwhich the Poor-law Commissioners
into the mann''.inir duty o to m
bad performed tpe
Cher _ ove for a general exa-
mination at the. bar Cl_ _ subject, yet
then submitted
that at present it would be contrary to ules 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 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 the 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 corn-
riginal draft. The letter exactly
corresponded with t draft.
pared it with the
original
Witness himself wrote
the draft, but could not say from which of the Com-
missioners he reinstructions to write the draft.
Could dot say whether he received instructions from Mr.
Phelan or not. There must have been a knowledge is
the office previous to the 16th of February that M-.
Butler was to be the returning officer, but he (wit-
ness) could not state whence it was derived.
By Lord NORMANBY—He believed be must
have received some verbal instructions to alter the re-
turn after he had received his iastructioas from Mr.

~''•,