The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-29 00:00:00

TITHE COMMUTATION ACT.

The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition
from the Rev. Henry Bird, against portions of the Tithe
Owl-mutation Act. _ _

The Bishop of LONDON--presented a similar peti-
tion, from a clergyman,,tn Essex.
Tho Tithe Commutation Bill (England and Wales)
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on
Thursday.

SLAVE TRADE.
The Slave Trade Abolition (Argentine Confederation)
Bill, the Slave Trade Suppression (Hayti) Bill, and the
Slave Trade Treaties Bill were read a third time.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND).
Lord MOUNTCASHEL rose to call the attention of
the House to a subject very short of breach of privilege„
He had moved for a return of certain papers, and these
papers had not been furnished to the House. Mr.
Phelan had refused to comply with their Lordships'
order to' give a return of the answers which he had re-
ceived from 93 persons, to whom his letter, marked
private, was addressed. He made that refusal
with the sanction of the Poor-law CommiSsion-
ers, from whom he obtained leave to insert in the
appendix to the returns made by their Lordships' order,
only fourteen letters which happened to be favourable to
the views of the Commissioners. The latter gentlemen,
assuming to themselves.- an " autocratic " power—(A
laugh, and cries of " Hear" from Lord Glengall)—and
defying their Lordships' orders, entered a minute on their
books, that " Mr. Phelan might deposit in their office
copies of such letters as he thought he might publish
without breach of confidence, and that he might retain
the others in his possession until they should be again
called for." Now he (Lord Mounteashel) had had com-
communications with several of the persons from whom
those letters, withheld by Mr. Phelan as confidential,
were received, and those gentlemen denied in positive
terms that they at all wished their letters to be suppressed
on the plea of confidence, but on the contrary, they
assured him that they were must desirous that their
answers to the Assistant Commissioner's private letter
should be made as public as possible. The Noble Earl then
read a letter from a medical gentleman, addressed to Mr.
Phelan, and informing that gentleman that, if the latter
did not publish his letter, he (the writer) would.,--(llear,
from Lord Glengall.) In fact, the Commissioners had
deceived their LordshipS, and had made to their Lord-
ships' orders what he felt himself justified in
designating as false returns.---(Hkar, hear, from Lord
Glengall.) Then, when these measures were suspected,
and an order was issued by their Lordships for the pro-
duction of papers, how did these Poor-law Commissioners
act ? Why, they sneaked into a corner, and put the
word "private" before them. They thus concealed the
truth, and kept back the facts. He conceived that their
Lordships had not been properly treated; and this
was the question—had they, or had they not received
proper treatment from those persons ? If their
Lordships did not respect themselves others
would not respect them.—(Hear, hear.) He need not
remind them that this was not the first time such con •
duct had taken place, and it had been enacted by the
same persons ; he would just call to their mind, however,
the occasion of John Butler being elected returning
officer for Clonmel, when precisely the same conduct
took place. He thought the Poor-law Commissioners
had been guilty of a gross contempt of the orders of their
Lordships' House, and he did hope the matter would not
be allowed to pass over.—(Cries of " Move, move.") It
was not his intention at first to have made a motion on
the subject ; he begged now, however, to move "That
all the letters which have not been furnished according
to the order of your Lordships' House shall be furnished
forthwith."

Lord WHAItNCLIFFE said it appeared to him that
the Noble Earl scarcely knew where to lay the blame of
the conduct of which he had complained. He (Lord
Wharncliffe) thought the Commissioners were quite
ready to lay before the House all the letters, if their
Lordships required them ; and he said so now on the
part of the Commissioners. His Noble Friend seemed
to think that this was a breach of the Act of Parliament.
It was no such thing; there was no breach of the law at
all. Now, with respect to these letters. They were
written by Mr. Phelan, were all marked " private," and
a paragraph at the end stated that they were to be con-
sidered as private. Mr. Phelan gave in a list of
o whom these letters had been written.
He receive answe o -S~:vrn
of those they had the letters of fourteen who consented-
to the publication. The question, then, was, would the
House of Lords compel the production of the remainder?
(Hear, hear.) He thought that when a number of
persons were applied to under. a promise' of confidence
to express their private opinions upon any'subject, their
Lordships would not require those letters to be pub-
lished. The Noble Earl (Mountcashel) stated that seve-
ral gentleman wished thoSe letters—it was in their own
power to have their wish accomplished.
The Duke of RICHMOND commended what had
been said by the Noble Lord who last spoke ; and he
thought it was much to be regretted that Noble Lords
indulged in such strong language as their Lordship's had
heard this evening, respecting public officers.—(Hear.)
The Earl of GLENGALL would not occupy their
Lordships by dwelling upon this subject, of which they
would hear enough on Thursday or Friday next, when
there would be presented to them petitions from the Me-
di cal Association of Ireland. He was not one of those

who wished to use strong language in the House respect-
ing public officers, but he would say that there was not
five lines of truth in the Medical Report of the Com-
missioners. The whole scheme of writing those letters,
and making them private, was to get up that Report, for
the purpose of placing the appointment of the medical
officers in the hands of the guardians, who were all
elected by the priests and the agitators.
Lord MONTEAGLE deprecated those discussions in
which the most unmeasured language of vituperation was
indulged towards the Commissioners of Poor-laws, the
late Government, and every one that did not concur i n
the political opinions of certain Lords. Whilst ha
could not agree that the Poor-law Guardians were the
mere tools of the priests and agitators, he wou!ii con-
cede this much, that a great deal of political agitation
and religious fervour had entered into the elections of
guardians. But surely the course pursued bythe Noble
Noble Lords oppoSite (the Earls of Mounteashel and
Glengall) was calculated to keep up the irritation instead
of (what all real friends of Ireland desired) allaying
that irritation, and removing party feeling as much
as possible from the consideration of the subject, from
which, of all others, it ought to be excluded—that was
the treatment of the poor.—(Hear, hear.) He thought
that discussions of this kind could end in no good. The
Poor-law Commissioners acted in perfect good faith, and
so did Mr. Phelan. The motion of the Noble Earl was
to have all these letters laid before them. He (Lord
Monteagle) thought they could not act more improperly
than by calling upon a person holding an official situa-
tion to betray a private trust ; and what could be be-
traying a private trust more palpably than giving up
private letters to be publicly examined ? He thought
such a course most inju.dicious, and he called upon their
Lordships to oppose the motion of the Noble Earl.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH supported the view s
of his Noble Friends near him. He would not enforce
the prodnetion of the letters, but he knew that they
were obtained with a view to this Report, upon which
a Commission was to be founded, with Mr. Phelan at its
head:
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said the Report could not
have been founded upon the letters, because the letters
were not written till after the Report was made.—(Hear,
hear.) He must say that it did not appear to him that
the least blame rested upon the Commissioners.
Earl WICKLOW said the question was whether the
Commissioners deserved those censures which the Noble
Earl hail passed upon them for either of the acts which
the Noble Earl had imputed to them, viz. :—first, break •
ing the Act of Parliament ; and second, insulting the
House. He (the Earl of Wicklow) did not think that
the Noble Lord had made out his case. He (the Earl
of Wicklow) said he could not think of any thing more
inconsistent with good faith and justice than the publica-
tion
of letters written under such circumstances. The
Commissioners did not refuse to comply with the order
of the House. On the other hand, they wrote to the
writers of those letters to ask their consent to the pub- -
lication, and they sent returns to the House of all those
of which the publication bad been agreed to. They did
more, for they informed the House that they would
return the other letters without the consent of the
Writers, if their Lordships thought it necessary
to insist on it. He (the Earl of Wicklow) regretted the
dismissal of Mr. Stanley from the office of Secretary to
the Commissioners, and as the office was still vacant, he
trusted he would be restored to it.
Lord COLCHESTER. was of opinion that the order
of the House had not been complied with ; and that no
public officer, writiug letters on a public subject, had a
right to mark his letters private, orhaving done so, to
select, for return to their Lordships' order, what answers
he pleased to select to suit purposes of his own.—(Hear,'
hear.) That individual had no right to disobey their
Lordships' order in whole or in part, or to make any
selection as to how much of it he would obey.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that there could
be no. doubt that, if their Lordships chose to insist upon
the production of those letters, they must be produced.
But the effect would be to prevent any person from com-
municating confidentially with any public officer. There
could be no exercise of their Lordships' privilege more
calculated to put an end to all confidence between man
and man, and between public men and private indi-
viduals, than would have been the full enforcement
of the order, in the sense in which it was interprete 1
by the Noble Earl (Mounteashel) ; and he therefore
hoped that the motion would be persevered in, that their
Lordships might meet it with. a direct negative. He
hoped .by giving a negative to this motion they would
show that they were not inclined to draw aside the veil
between a public officer and a private individual. • •