The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-06 00:00:00

that communication would be carried into effect.
The Committee were very anxious to prevent any such '
exhibition in Lent, and to have the entertainment post.
poned to some other day, but this was found to be
impracticable ; but an understanding was effected that
no exhibitions should take pl c c that were in any way
indecent or improper.
The Earl of REDESDALE presented a petition
from Stockten.on-Stour, praying that union workhouses
might be exempted from parochial and Parliamentary
taxation.

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM presentA a peti-
tion from Stockton, aga:nst any alteration in the Corn-
laws ; also a similar petition from a place in Cornwall.

SAN SULPICE.
The Bishop of EXETER gave notice that on
Friday next he should move that an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, earnestly praying her
Majesty to withhold her Royal sanction from the ordi-
nance for incorporating the eezlesialtics of the Seminary
of San Sulpice.

POOR-LAWS.
The Earl of GLENGALL rote, pursuant to
notice, to move for copies of correspondence be-
tween the Poor-law Commissioners and landowners
'at Clonmel. The Noble Earl said, that for
be last forty years no measure of greater
importance bad passed than the Act which
gave Poor-laws to Ireland, and it was of the greatest
importance that those laws should be adminis-
tered with impartiality. He wished he could
believe that such had been the line of conduct adopted
hythe Commissioncre,but he thought he should be able to
prove that such was not the case. For even thing
he should state he was prepared to bring evidence
upon ootb at their Lordships' bar. The subject
comprised two parts—one was the conduct of the
Commissioners with respect to the appointment of
the returning officer ; and the ether was the re-
sult which ensued from that conduct, on both
of which he did Lot think the Commissioners had acted
with impartial ty.—(Cries of " Ilear, hear.") The.
person who was appointe.l returning officer had the
power of performing great services, if he pleased, to
his political party, and hence he (the Earl of Glengall)
belie red the office was eagerly sought for. By appointing
valu..tors of property who were under their influence
they were enabled materially to effect the result of any
election. In Clonmel the Commissioners selected for re-
turning officer a partisan of a particular faction in Ireland,
whose conduct in discharging the functions of his office
had involved the union in greet litigation, and had given
offence to all the "respectability" of Clonmel. This
person was named Butler, and the Commissioners, in
appointing him, parsed over a gentleman named Fennell,
the High Constable of the town, who was recommended
by all the gentl, men'and by the proprietors of the prin-
cipal part of Demme'. The Noble Lord then related
a case, which was not distinctly understood in the gal-
lery, but in which he said that Mr. Butler was guilty of
suborning a man named Davis to commit perjury. Da-
vis, he said, was convicted at the assizes and sentenced
to three months' imprisonment. By this returning
officer's fraudulent appointment of the guardians, and
litigation in which it gat•? rise, the union was sub-
jected to upwards of 8001. in law expenses. The
Noble Earl conclude I by moving for certain returns
relative to the Poor-laws, and also for the correspond-
ence that had taken place between the Poor-law Com-
missioners in Ireland and thelindowners of Clonmell.

The Marquis of NORM ANDY thought the Noble
Earl, before he brought forward such grave charges
against individuals, ought to have given some no-
tice of his intention t do so, in order that those against
whom he made them might have an opportunity of ex-
laining them. If the facts were as had been stated, there
had been such a gross breach of duty on the part of i
those Commissioners, as; would shake the confidence of
the House in those officers. He had so high an opi-
nion of the character of Mr. Nicholls, of the ability
with which he exercised his functions, and of his desire
to administer the ltw with the utmost impartiality, and
without any political bias whatever, that he could not
but think that ti-ere must be some mistake, and that in
a few days Mr. Nicholls would satisfactorily answer r he
charge/. Upon this point, therefore, he would er.treat
their Lordships to suspend their opinion, until an op-
portunity of explanation had been affarded to Mr. Ni-
cholls. He (ti e Marquis of Normanby) believed that
the irritation which had attended the introduction of
this law was now gradually subsiding ; and he hoped,
that through the zealous, feithful, end impartial dis-
charge of the duties of the Commissioners, it would
prove a great and lasting I enefit to Ireland.
The Duke of WELLINGTON said it was im-
possible, considering all that had passed on the subject
of these Poor-laws—considering the confidence which
many of their Lordships had placed in tl.:e honour of
those who proposed the system—and considering the
great power given by the Bill to the Commissioners, it '
was certainly to have been expected they would have
exercised it as it was their duty to exercise it. -When
the Legislature entrusted great power to public officers
it expected they would exercise that power, and exer-
cise it in the nay which the law intended it should be
exercised, and carry it into execution justly and fairly
to all parties. Now, he must say that in all these dis-
cussions, it appeare l to him that this was not the case
—that in many instances it had not been the case—
that that power had Lem fairly exercised for the pur-
pose for which it had been granted. The fact stated
by his Noble Friend (the Earl of Gleegatl) was
a most curious one, and one on which he li
should on Monday make a motion, of which
be then begged leave to give notice, namely,
that the House should have 1 rid before it nn exact
copy of the minutes of the Poor-law Commissioners
under the particular clause of the Act of Parliament
which said that all this correspondence ought to be
recorded. There might have been mistakes made be-
tweea the dates of the letters written and received, but
these, were things requiring explanation. He (the
Duke of Wellington) had supported this measure, as
had many of their Lordships, in confidence that it
would be fairly carried into operation, and more par-
ticularly by those gentlemen who were employed to
point out what was the intention of their Lordships ;
but he (the Duke of Wellington) for one, was greatly
disappointed in the working of the measure, and he
felt certain thct this was owing to the fact that the
Poor-law Commissioners had not performed their duty
as they ought to have performed it. It was with that
he (the Duke of Wellington) charged them, and he
would make his motion on Monday, to show their
Lordships how th:s one clause had been carried into
execution, upon which the whole turned, namely, the
mode in which they recorded their proceedings, in order
that their Lordships and the of kr House of Parlia-
ment might have an opportunity of trying every act of
theirs by the original proceedings.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said, perhaps the
Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) would have no
objection to postpone his motion until Thursday, to
ive him (the Marquis i.f Normanby) time to commu-
nicate with Mr. Nicholl4. .

The Duke of WELLINGTON assented that the
motion should be postponed to Thursday.
Lord ELLENBOROUGII said he confessed it
did not appear to him likely that this communication
would answer the purpose, and he thought it was very
doubtful whether their Lordships ought to be satisfied
with any explanation proceeding from the Nohl3 Mar-
quis. It appeared to him there could be no doubt that
a gross breach of privilq,e had been committed, which
deserved to be punished in the severest manner. He
hell in his band letters evidently official, which it was
proressed were printed in V.e paper before the House,
hut which !e!Acrs were in different terms and of differ-
eat dates. The letters bearing the official signature
stated one thing and the printed letters stated another
thing. He thought it might be necessary to examine
the Commissioners on this subject at the Bar of their
Lordships' House.

The Marquis of NORMANBY admitted with the
Noll!. Baronet that, if the explanation of the Com-
missioners were not satisfactory, and he should write
for it by the earliest post, he would think it necessary
that their Lordships should take further steps.
The Earl of G LENti ALL made a few observations
in
The return was then ordered, and their Lordships
adjourned till Monday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARC,! 5.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
The Stoke-upon-Trent Small Debts' Bill was read a
second time and ordered to be committed.
The Christ Church and Lyndhurst Road Bill was
mid a second time and ordered to be committed.
Sir E. WTILMOT presented a petition from the
Woreeqer Canal Company against the Severn Naviga-
tion Bill.
Mr. 0. GORE presented petitions from places in
Montgomeryshire and Shropshire to the same effect.
Mr. *H. BERKELEY presented several petitions from
parishes in Nottingham, against the Nottingham Gas-
Bill. The Hon. Gentleman also presented a petition
against the Severn Navigation Bill.
Sir J. HOBII OUSE presented a petition signed by
12,000 persons against the Nottingham Gas B la. Also
a petition froin the town of Nottingham to the same
On the motion of the Earl of LINCOLN, the
Sedgley Road Bill Ives read a second time and ordered
to be committed. The Noll! Lord also prese7ited
pc tition from the town of Nottingham, signed by 4,500
persons in favour of the Nottingham Gas Bill
Mr T. DUNCOM BE presented a petition against
the Nottingham G is Bill.
Mr. GISBORNE presented a similar petition from
the inhabitants of the suburbs of t
Nottingham
Sir J. HOBIIOUSE presented a petiion from the
surveyors of the Highway rats of Nottingham against
the Bill.

NOTTINGHAM GAS BILL.
Colonel ROLLESTON moved the second reading
of the Nottingham Gas Bi:l.
Sir J. ROBHOUSE opposed the second reading of
the Bill, on the- ground tt'at the present Company were
peeectly compcterit to supply 311 the wants of the towln-
.n.
He had that day presented a petition from 0.,000
habitants of Nottingham against the Bill, and both the