The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-20 00:00:00

DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY begged to call
the attention of the House to a matter of some import-
ance, with a view to ascertain whether the Government
had any knowledge of it. As there was now before this
House a Bill affecting Ireland, he did think it would be
desirable to clear the matter up. It alluded to the pre-
sent state of Roscommon, and contained statements
which could scarcely be believed. The Noble Marquis
then read a statement from adocumenthe held in bis hand,
from which it appeared that the system of eviction of
tenantry was sadly on the increase in Ireland. It was
stated in a journal published in Roscommon a few days
ago—although he did not believe the truth of the whole
of that statement—that a certain lady had dispossessed
no less than four hundred tenants a few weeks ago,
and who were consequently plunged into the
greatest distress, without the slightest means of
shelter. That lady and her husband had, on the
authority of the same journal, dispossessed upwards
of 2,000 human beings within the last two years. Now,
although he (the Marquis of Londonderry) could not for
a moment believe that the statements were, on the
whole, correct, although they were printed in very
large letters, yet ho did think that if the Government
had any power of preventing those most cruel evictions
they ought to do something in this particular case.
Public notice, in his opinion, ought to be taken of this
matter. Every one must feel that no country could be
properly carried on when such cruelties were per-
mitted. He therefore wished to know whether the
Government had made any inquiry into the circum-
stances, and, if they had, whether they had any objec-
tion to lay the information before their Lordships ?
Earl ST. GERMANS said that the Noble Mar-
quis had been kind enough to give him notice that
morning of his intention to put that question. In re-
ply, he (the Earl of St. Germans) had to say that the
Government had received no information whatever
of the circumstances ; indeed, it would be very difficult
to obtain any information, inasmuch as there were no
names given. It appeared to him, however much they may
deplore this extraordinary exercise of power, it was im-
possible for the Government to prevent it. But at the
same time if they should obtain any information, he on
the part of the Government, would be most happy to fur-
nish it.
Earl CLANRICARDE said that the case appeared so
horrible, that he thought it deserving of notice. It was
quite possible to arrive at the particulars of the case,
if the names of the parties could be obtained, because,
if any parties had been ejected, there must have been
some previous process at the Court of Quarter Sessions,
or the Baronial Courts, in which case there would be a
record, and after the particulars were obtained lie should
be most happy to move that a Committee of that House
be appointed to take into consideration the amendment
of the present law of landlord and tenant.—(Hear.)
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that he had
not the experience or abilility of the Noble Lord who
had just spoken, and not being connected
into
the south of Ireland, he did not prosecute his inquiries
the matter. He thought that in stating the case to the
House, and in calling the attention of the Government
to the subject, they would make necessary inquiries, and
report to the House what measures they would adopt to
put a stop in the time coming to similar proceedings.
Earl CLXNRICARDE said that he might be mis-
taken in mentioning that information might he had from
the Baronial Courts—certainly information might be re-
ceived from the Sheriff's office.
The Earl ST. GERMANS said that the Government
did not desire to conceal any of the facts. All he had
said Was, that it was not in the power of Government, if
these proceedings were legal, to put a stop to them.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said, that if the
Noble Marquis who had hronght forward the threw:n-
ewton were in the habit of reading the Irish newspapers,
he would be aware that they did not always confine
themselves to the truth.—(Laughter.)

Lord STOURTON postponed the motion for certain
returns of which he had given notice, in order not to in-
terfere with the very important question on Ireland,
which came on on Monday first.
MINISTERS' MONEY.

- - Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from the
magistrates and town council of Cork, praying for the
abolition of Ministers' money.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS.

The NOBLE and LEARNED LORD also presented a
petition from certain bookbinders against the Charitable
Trusts Bill.
MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the
guardians of Lord Forbes (as we thought) and the
'Viscountess Forbes, against the above railway, which
threatened to destroy the property of Castle Forbes.
ALTERATIONS IN THE RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Lord KINNAIRD said that he would propose, on
Thursday next, that a Committee be appointed to take
uto consideration the best means of introducing one uni-
form system in the management of railways, and
of securing the fulfilment of the provisions given
by the Act of Parliament under which the com-
panies have obtained their powers; and by which greater
accommodation and safety may be secured to the public.
Secondly, to take into consideration the best means of
avoiding extravagant expense for obtaining Acts of Par-
liament by bona fide concerns, and of preventing
the formation of schemes got up fur the purposes of spe-
culation. Thirdly, to consider what legislative measures
can be framed for the protection of individuals from the
injuries they may sustain by the laying down of lines
through their property, without the ruinous expense of
opposing them in Parliament. He knew cases where
individuals had been so interfered with by railways, and
their solicitors and agents had told them it would be
better for them to submit to the injury than to go to the
expense of obtaining redress in Parliament.
POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.—REFUSAL OF
PAPERS.
Lord BROUGHAM said, that in the case of a Corn
mittee formed to inquire into the opeiation of the Irish
poor-law circumstances have occurred to which he felt
it necessary to call the attention of the House. The
Committee was obstructed in its proceedings by a wit-
ness refusing to produce papers and answer ques-
tions, being forbidden by the order of the
Poor-law Commissioners to disclose to the Com-
mittee the contents of certain documents. It
was so monstrous a thing, that he could hardly
have believed it, had he not seen Mr. Gunston, the Poor-
law Commissioner, also the letter in which he asks per-
mission of the Poor-law Commissioners to produce to
the Committee the correspondence. Mr. Gunston told
him that he could not find the answer to the letter, but
he assured him that the answer expressly forbid him
to produce the papers.
Lord CLANCARTY said the witness certainly did
object to produce the papers before the Committee, and
he thought it a fit subject for inquiry, and it had been his
intention to bring the circumstances under the notice of
the House, had he not been anticipated by his Noble
Friend Lord Brougham. Mr. Gunston had refused
to produce the papers, but had now not obtained per-
mission of the Poor-law Commissioners ; but he objected
that the House should be dependent on the permission
of any public body for the papers necessary to
carry out the inquiries. He had thought that the
Committee ought to have noticed the circumstance by
some special report in their general report, as he looked
with great jealousy on the manner in which the Poor-law
Commissioners had interfered, as there was an Act of
Parliament which laid down the manner in which the
duties should be discharged.
Lord BROUGHAM said, though the papers were pro-
duced to-morrow, an offence against their privileges had
been committed, as those who had refused to produce
them had prevented their inquiry from going on to-day.
The Poor-law Commissioners should be told that it was
at their peril that they refused to produce these papers.
They had no right to refuse to produce them. Mr.
Gunston said he had had their permission to do
so ; but they had no permission to withhold them.
If the Committee required these documents, they might
report to the House, and obtain an order for their pro-
duction. He was anxious to keep their privileges in as
small a compass as possible compatible with the proper
carrying on of the business entrusted to them, and he
would not consent to forego any privilege of an inquisi-
torial character which was necessary.
The Earl ST. GERMANS inquired if the papers re-
ferred to were " private and confidential ?"
The Earl of CLANCARTY said they were, but that
nevertheless they contained the instructions of the Poor-
law Commissioners to Mr. Gunston.

Lord MONTEAGLE also considered that no public
body had any right to refuse the production of papers
required by Parliament. The House was not only left
without information, but by having only a portion of
the information they required, was in a worse position
than if they had none at all.
Lord CLARE said be was a member of the Committee;
that Mr. elrulston stated that he was forbidden to pro-
duce the papers by the Poor-law Commissioners.
Lord CAMPBELL said he apprehended there must
be some mistake in this matter, as Mr. Gunston would
not have been so ridiculously absurd as to have re-
fused those papers.—(Hear, hear.) The Commissioners
were bound to produce all papers that were necessary
to facilitate this inquiry ; and it was for the Committee
to decide what papers were and were not necessary, and
not for the Commissioners. This was the most important
public inquiry that had been instituted for some time,
and therefore every facility should be afforded it.
Lord BROUGHAM said that Mr. Gunston wrote a
letter to the Poor-law Commissioners to know whether,
if he should be called upon to produce certain papers, he
should do so ; and the answer was, that the papers were
private and confidential, and should not be produced.
He would not have said so muoh upon this case
but that he was already cognizant of a defi-
ciency of judgment by those Commissioners in refe-
rence to Mr. Parker's case. He had defended
the Poor-law Commissioners when they deserved de-
fence ; and, therefore, he now warned them to attend
more to the letter and the will of Parliament, and to do
their duty without fear of the newspapers.—(Hear,
hear.) That was the charge he made against them, for
they had avowed their fear of the press.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of CLANCARTY presented a petition from
the medical practitioners of the county of Clare, praying
for the repeal of the present law affecting their pro-
fession.