The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 1841

revered Monarch George 111. having presented the
jewels to his no less illustrious consort Queen. Charlotte,
on the occasion of her marriage. Having stated thus
much, he did not Mean, unless hi„ .Learned Friend, Mr.
Pemberton, differed with him (and they did nr.t often
differ), to oppose the action, although it was clear Vie
defendants were by no means entitled to it a. a matter
of right, but would leave it to the discretion of the Court,
wishing that, when the case came to be decided, it
should I e found that no one circumstance bad been
kept back, which, in the estimation of Judges or advo-
cates, might, by.any possibility, be deemed essential to
the just determination of the case.
Mr. PEMBERTON entirely concurred ha the caurse
which had been taken by Sir Charles Wetherell,
but hoped the Court would direct the Commission to
be returned at the earliest possible period. -
The order for the Commission was then made, and
the Commission made returnable for the last day of
Easter Term.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 22.
Their Lordships met at five o'clock.
A message from the Commons brought up the Lease
and Rekave Bill, the Manchester and Salford Water-
works BT, aad several other Bills, which were read a
firtt ;;me.

Lord STR AFFORD presented a petition from the
tea dealers of Liverpool, prating for an equalisation of
the sugar and coffee duties.
The NOBLE LORD presented also a number of peti-
tions from places in the counties of Londonderry and
Donegal, against lay patronage in the Church of Scot-
land.

The Mutiny Bill, and Marine Mutiny B:11, severally
went through Committee, and were ordered to be read
a third time to-mcrrow.
CASE OF MR. CANDLEIS H.
The Duke of ARGYLE having presented a petition
against Church patronage in Scotland, took the oppor-
tunity of defending the Rev. Mr. Candleish against the
charge made by the Noble Secretary for the Home De-
parttne it, that the Rev. Gentleman had violated the law.
The Marquis of NORMAN BY regretted that his
Noble Friend the Duke of Argyle had taken occasion
to justify the conduct of Mr. Candleish. Proceelings
had hcen instituted for the purpose of ascertaining, in
the Scotch Courts of Law, whether the conduct of that
gentleman had been illegal or not.
The Marquis of DO WNSH IRE presented petitions
from congregations of Presbyterians, in the Counties of
Down and Tyrone, against Church patronage iu Scot-
hod. The Noble Marquis presented also a petition
from Bcllast, for the better observance of the Sabbath.
The Whitby Improvement Bill, the South Western
Railway 8111, and the Britannia Insurance Company
Bill were severally read a second time.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl of GLENG ALL then rose to move that
Mr. Phelan, Assistant Poor-law Commissioner in Ire-
land, should be called to the bar and examined. The
Noble Earl said that he thought it but justice to say
that he ha'l that day rece:vad a letter from Mr. Bag-
wed, whose nettle had been mentioned in that
investigation, denying th.at he was actuated by any im-
proper motive in the appoictnent as rcturning officer
of Mr. Butler, a relative of the Roman Catholic Arch-
bisho►p of Casha, as stated by Mr Hawley in one of the
Dahlia papers.

The Marquis of NORMANBY said, ho also Lai
received a similar letter from Mr. Bagwell, and that he
.had written to that gentleman, stating that he (the
Marquis of Normanby) disbelieved the imputation.
The Earl of WICKLOW said, he thought they
ought to have Mr. Hawley there, for it appeared to
him that Mr. Hawley was the most culpable person
engaged in t hetransaction.

Tile Marquis of NORMANBY was understood to
fay that he thought it would be proper to have Mr.
Hawley examined at the bar.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH said they should reeel-
loot where they were going. He was anxious to have

Mr. Hawley examined, but it appeared to him that if
there were to make inquiry into the conduct of the
Poor-law Commissioners, they had better make it alto-
getier and not by halves.—(Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of NORM ANBY said the object of
their inquiry was to inquire on what grounds Mr.
Stanley made an alteration in the language of a letter
from what was originally intended, and by whose advice
and sanction that alteration was made.
The Earl of WICKLO W said that was the most
important pait of the inquiry, and he thought it would
he best elicited by a private Citnmittee.
The Earl of GLENGALL said his object was to
get at the point mentioned by his Nob'e Friend, which
could only be done by a Committee up stairs.
Lord FITZGERALD and VESCI thought that
it was due to Mr. Hawley thet he should be afforded
an opportunity of explanation.
Mr. Pile!an was then called to the Bar and exa-
mined by the Eal of GLENGALL.—Witness is an
Assis'ant Poor-Law Commissioner in Ireland. Is a
surgeon. Is not aware that Lord Morpeth gave direc-
tions to the Poor-lacy Commiss:orers of Ireland that the
High Constables of Baronies should be appointed re-
turning officers under the Poor-law Act wherever such
a proeeeling should be practicable ; but he knew that
the opinion of the Poor-law Commissioners was that
such ought to be the case. It was gencra'ly so under-
Ftood. Toe general directions given to the Assistant-
Commissioners were to appoint fit and proper per-
sons rt turning officers such as would be likely to
perform their duties efficiently. It was understood that
persons of strong political opinions should not be ap-
pointed. ‘Vitness had received a later from John
Butler, dated Cionmel, 6th February 1839, in which he
requested witness to apply to the Attorney-General,
as he (Butler) had written three letters to him, to
which he had received no reply, and that the
Attorney- G.meral had promised him very
_fair,
. .

but, as yst, had done nothing for him. - Party
spirit generally ran high in Clonmel. Had known
Mr. Butler for twenty-seven years very intimately. He
belongs ta what is called the Reform party. Unless
he did I don't think he would have written such a
letter as he did to the Attorney-General. Witness has
resided for about thirty years in Clonmel, and knows all
the transactions connected with it. He was not aware
of Butler having made a composition with his creditors
about three years ago, nor had he ever heard of it until
it was mentionel to him in London about three weeks
age. He had ne%er heard of Mr. But!er asking is
landlord for irp: Had , huf"
iaie Key ot, the premises. heard ofa trial,
Burke v. Butler, but knew nothing of the facts of the
eases ; does not know whe!Ler it was proved at that
trial that a relative of Butler's, who went to America,
made over his property to him, to be handed
back on his return, or that Butler settled the pro-
perty on his own wife ; and, finally, that
he gave 5001. to settle the matter. Witness was in
Clonmel when the trial took place, but has no recollec-
tion of these facts. Recollects a case in which
Butler was brought before the Magistrates for
an assault upon the police, but a most re-
spectable gentleman of Clonmel stated that Mr.
Butler had ailed most properly on that oceasion,
and had prevented a great loss of life.
He cannot tell why the Magistrates referred the
matter to the Government for its opinion. Wit-
ness voted for Ba'l at that. election ; atteaded din-
ners and meetings to secure the return of that gentle-
man. Prosecuted the Consiiiulional newspaper for
libels on his,professional character, not for any remarks
upon his speeches at the political dinners, or upon any
other part of his political conduct.
To the Marquis of LANSDOWNE—Swears most
solemnly that he did not prosecute the paper alluded
to for attacks upon his political conduct, but for at-
tacks upon his professional character.
To the Earl of GLENGALL—He did not
know wilt-titer his solicitor, Mr. Green, made a
speech or a song the ground of the action. Mr.
Butler proposed Mr. Ball at an election in Clon-
mel. He (Mr. Phelan) supported Mr. Ball on the
occasion, who he believed was returned without opposi-
ticn. He was net aware that Mr. Ball had ever recom-
mended him for the of se of Assistant Cemmiasioner.
He had no knowledge of this fact, and he had no recollec-
tion of having seen it in the Returns. He expected
however, that Mr. Bail would have used his influence
in his favour. He had no recollection of the fact that
Mr. Butler had acted as agent to Mr. Ronayne at an
election in Clonmel in opposition to Mr. Bagwell. He
saw and heard of the evidence taken before the Mr.-
met Election Committee, but he did not remember the
eireu:natance. He suspected he had read Mr. Butler's
evidence on the occasion, but he had no distinct recd•
lection on the matter. He had himself taken no share
in that election.
citedAs is
3i
t \atiltrte ..
CEBoaanil of
Bait's
iisnstieeHrneAesrtD, aiDnrllbNihseGfhaTvao7uNrre—efeory ete had soli-hdefrooffimeehionf
a favourable answer.

By Lord FITZGERALD—You suspect that Mr.
Ball recommended you ?--I have no doubt but he did. i
By the Earl of GLENGALL—IIaving been aware
that Mr. Butler had t %ken so decided a part in the
ek'ction of Mr. Ball, and that he had also used his
influence in favour of Mr. Ronayne at the Clannn-1
election, how could you recommend him to the Poor-
law Commissioners as a person who had no political
connection in the town for the office of returning officer
—ln the first place I did not consider Mr. Butler at the
time as an active criviisscr, and in the next place I
did not recommend him--I merely introduced him to the
Asslstant-Commissioners,leaving them to judge for them-
selves. Witness had never known, nor did he believe,
chat Mr. l3atler had ever been a bankrupt,
or an insolvent, or. that. he had ever made a
and does not believe that he is in insolvent
composition with his creditors. Knows Butler has
. Will not swear that he never
I compounded with his credit(); s, but does not
believe that he ever did.. When witness had heard a
report to that effect in the office he had written
down to Conmel on the subject to Mr.
Bayer, and to a gentleman of veracity, on whom
he could place reliance, and he would, wlth their , cPirrruearttsYta' noes.
Lord-
ships' permission, real those letters. l.t was decided
.
that the letters could not be read, and the examinatlon
was resumed.) Mr. Butler, in his letter, denied
that he had
ever been bankrupt or insolventor had ever
made a composition with his creditors.
Believes Butler to be at tlns moment a 501. free-
a7bpuirted; Always understood that Butlerill not swear to these things of
free-
holder of the county of 'Tipperary. Is not aware
that the lease on the property for which he was
rpeogsissetsesreed '
ln
hasd
professionally, but his own knowledze•
hfaismplYrivate. concerns. Butter had told
Has been in the habit of attend-
3', never talked to
cbteiada übsted i Basu.gorearduialalldy
mdealienipngrOperty in that
illllißtatoakturt:she had retired from the woollen trade
Had heard
I business. It was pos!iLle that Mr. Butler might ha:e
wade a composition with his creditors without the know-
ledge of the witness.
By Lord REIMSDALE—Witness visited many
families in Connie], and he supposed they were as
telvieedtratilleatw
much in the habit of canvassing other people's affairs

as in other places—(Alaugb)—but he had never beard
of the circumstance. He could not state what any one
imagined, but be bad never heard any one say that they
supposed or expected Mr. Butler would become a
bat krupt.

To 'Lori GLENGALL—He hal been absent
from Clonmel eiglA months in 1824. He had besril
of the verdict rgainst Mr. Butler, but he did not
think he had ever read any report of the trial. He
did net know that any fraud had been imputed to him,
nor had ha ever spoken to Mr. Bader upon the subject.
To the Marquis of LANSDOWNE—He knew it
was a civil trial in which the verdict bad bean against
him—he was well aware that it was not a criminal pro-
ceeding.

To Lord GLENGALL—Mr. Batkr was not de-
serving of the character of a partizan—he was looked
upon by the Reformers as a very lukewarm friend for
many years. Witness did not know of his having been
an election agent, and he was looked upon as a lake-
warm friend to the Reform cause notwithstanding his
vote for Mr. B.,1!. I don't think. Mr. Butler was de-
serving the character of a part'zan—there are certainly
many who are loss politicians and partizans than Mr.
Butler.. Tile population of the union of Cionma is
about OG,OOO. I think it was possible to find a per-
son less of a partizan and equally fitted for the office of
returainz officer. I knew a clerk of Mr. Butler's
named Denis Walsh, but I don't know how his salary
was paid after Mr. Butler retired from business. 1
believe Mr. Fennell was as strongly biassed towards
one party as Mr. Butler was on the other. I state that
from my long acquaintance with him. I never heard
anything prejudicial to the character of Mr. Funned.
Never heard that Mr. Fennell was in arrear in his re-
turns to the Grand Jury of the many thousands which
he had to collect for the county. Mr. Fennell had
never voted for the county, because he bad no vote.
Did not know VIDA; the father of that gentleman had
sufficient property to pive him a rent charge, which
would qualify him to vote.
To Lord FITZGERALD—Must alinit that Mr.
Butler having attended public meetinv, and voted for
one party at elections, was more of a partizan than
Mr. Fennell, who never attended such meetings, and
never had a vote. Admitted that Mr. Fennell ryas as
fit a person to be returning-officer as Mr. Butler. But
the latter had been recommended by Messrs. Hawley
and Hancock, before Mr: Fenntll's application was
received.

To Lord REDESDALE—AIthough the written
recommendation from those gentlemen had not been
received at the office of the Commissioners before Mr.
Ftnnetl's application, yet it was known to the Commis-
sioners through witness, that they did recommend him.
It was not a rule to make written records of such corn-
munictfons as had passed upon the subject ; previous
to the letter, included in the returns before the House,
I was in Dublin on the 15th of February, 1839. I was
then Assistant Poor-law Cemmissiener. I might pos-
sibly have seen Mr. Fennell's latter, but I have no re-
collection of it. lam certain I did not tel the clerk
in the office that Mr. Butler had been appointed re-
turning officer. I only knew at the time that Mr. But-
ler had been recommended, and I might have men-
tioned t'iat fact. I was not the main instrument in ef-
fecting Mr. Butler's appointment. I wrote to Mr. Han-
cock, and that letter was partly a recommendation and
partly an introduction. I thought the letter was a mere
matter of course, and would have given a similsr one to
Mr. Ferinell had he asked me. If I had seen Mr. Fen-
nell's vote.; and the manner in which the returns of the
cess were made, I should not have thought him a proper
person to be appointed returning officer. I was not su--
prised at Mr. Butler seeking and obtaining so insignifi-
cant an rppointment, as he was at the time unern-
pleyed. M Any persons in better circumstances applied
for similar situations. I don't recollect Mr. Bianconi,
or any ether rarty, having spoken to me in Mr. But-
ler's favour ;it might have occurred. Mr. Butler is a
Roman Catholic, and Mr. Feme.ll either a Protestant or
a Quaker. The office of returning officer was looked
upon more es a situation of trust and responsibility
than from the pecuniary emoluments attached to it.
I never heard that Butler sought the appointment of
Master of the House of Industry. The salary of
Butler was 201. per annum. Wel (the nephew cf
Butler) and his wife were anxious for the appointment
of rreaster and matron of the workhouse. I soletnnfyil
believe that Butler discharged his duty faithfully, which
was a very difficult matter under the circumstances.
I have repeatedly stated that I thought Mr. Butler unfit
for the office of valuA3r. I thought it was better to
have professional valuators. I heard at the office that
there were complaints. against Mr. Butler, and in May
last the C3mmissiohers cawed upon me to state what
I knew of his character. I made a report to them
accordingly. The IctLr from the Mayor I understood
was directed to me mere as a private individual than
as a Commissioner. ••I did not communicate it to the
Commissioners. There were many communications
made to me respecting other unions, which I considered
as of a strictly private nature, but if there was any-
thing in them of great importance I was accustomed to
communicate it to the Commissioners. I considered
in this case that the same information would conto to
the Commissioners in a more regular way. Mr. Nicholls
desired ate to state what I knew respecting Mr. Butler,
but I was never applied to respecting any specific
complaint that was made against him. I knew
there La I been numerous complaints made against Mr.
Butler. I have heard of •the trial of Davis for per-
jury. I have heard that he made
_qn_pligl4_,Nit that he
le'svas accordingly sentenced i 3
months' imprisonment. Ido not know whether it was
sworn at the trial that Butler was the chief means of
making Davis commit that perjury. I did not make
many inquiries from Davis respecting it, from knowing
the character of some of the parties engaged in that
transaction. I knew men named Shanathon, Flinn,
and Create. They Were witaes3es on the trial: No
communication was made to me that Mr. Nicholl's con-
fidence in Butler was greatly shaken after the trial of
Davis. I was in Dublin in the month of May, 1840.
1 must have had some communication with Mr. Stanley
respecting the returns to this House. I never expressed
any wish to him t 3 have left out of the returns what I
had said respecting Butler in my Report of May,
1840. I did not recommend that he should be con-
tinued in office as returning officer in 1841, nor yet that
he should not—neither the one nor the other.
By the Marquis of NORMANBY—I att =bed
little importance to the appointment of Mr. Betler. I
was much engaged at the time with my novel duties. I
may have been appointed Assistant Commissioner on
the ground that I might be found useful in the medical
depart ,tent, but I do not know that such was the case.
I am the author of a work on medical charities.
The witness then withdrew, but was desired to hold
himself ready fur further examination.
Mr.' Peddcll was then called on, and examined by

Lord GLENGALL.—He resided in Clonmel since
the year 1805. Knew the returning officer, Mr. John
Butler. It was well known in the town that Butler
hnd failid in business and compounded with his cre-
dibri, and.that he never paid the composition. It
was a matter of public notoriety in Clontnel. Mr.
Bagwell was a gefltleman of large property, owning
the largest part of the town of Clonmel. Tnat gentle-
man was reported to be of Liberal principles, but he
had made complaints against Butler's conduct ns re-
turning officer. In the case of Burke against Butler,

he conduct of the defendant was the common talk of

the town. Witness could not suppose it possible that
any medical man of considerable practice in the town
could be ignorant of the assertions against Butler to
which that trial rave rise. Witness was told that the
Government reprimanded Butler for his conduct in
the case in which the Magistrates condemned him
for assaulting the police. The general opinion of But-
ler in Clonmel was, that ho was a most decided political
partisan, and witness heard it &pressed amongst per-
sons of all parties, Catholic ac.d Protestant, that, on ac-
count of his extreme partisanship, he was a most unfit
man to be selected for the duties of a returning officer.
Mr. George Fennell was not known as a political par-
tisan. He had no vote, and was not in the habit of at-

tending political meetings.
To tLe Marquis of. N ORMANBY—Witness bad a
correspondence with the Poor-law Commissioners on

this subject. Could not say that it was a very warm
one.—(A laugh.) Had been in the House during the
examination of the other witnesses. Had also read the
reports of the evidence in the newspapers and in the
printed papers before their Lordships.
To Lord REDESLA LE—Had not heard, in
Clontnel, that Messrs. Hawley and Hancock had
made inquiries respecting the character of But-
ler. They bad stated that they made such in-
quiries, and he must believe them ; but he thinks it
strange that they did not inquire of the respectable in-
habitants of the town, or of the principal proprietor, Mr.
Bagwell, who had been the landlord of Butler. Mr.
Bianconi, who recommended Butler, was the largest
proprietor of stagecoaches in the south of Ireland, and
cues a most respected-and praiseworthy individual.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw, when a
discussion of some length took place as to the propriety
of having Mr. Hawley called to the bar.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said that whatever
might have been the impropriety of conduct proved
against the Assistant Commissioners, the Commissioners
themselves were the only persons responsible to that
House. _

It was ultimately arranged that Mr. Hawley and
Mr. Earle should be required to attend, the former on
Friday, and the latter on Monday next.
The Marquis of NORMANBY brought in a
for the improvement of certain boroughs. He would
move its second reading to-morrow, with a view to its
being referred to the Committee on the Drainage Bill.
Their Lordships then Adjourned.