POOR LAWS (IRELAND). (Hansard, 8 March 1841)

The Earl of Glengall

said, he was sorry so soon again to bring under the consideration of the House another motion respecting the appointment of the returning officer to the Clonmel union. His motion was rendered necessary in consequence of certain returns which had been laid upon the table of the House, and which, like those to which he referred on Friday last, had been falsified. When noticing the subject the last night the House met, he had made out what every noble Lord who heard him admitted to be a singular and very curious case, and he was compelled to-day to adduce another, which was to the full as extraordinary. In February, 1840, he (Lord Glengall) had moved for certain returns connected with the Clonmel union, together with copies of all the correspondence which had taken place between the Poor-law Commissioners and certain magistrates and others, respecting the election of guardians for the Clonmel union. That return was laid on the table, and in the month of May he had moved for the same return, together with other documents. On examining the two, he found there was a material difference—between that presented in February and the one presented in May; and although both purported to be copies of the same documents, yet the wording of the two were essentially different. He was quite aware that on reading and comparing both, noble Lords might say, that the difference was not material; but when he, who understood the case, and, as he believed, knew the reason why the documents had been falsified, the variation appeared to be important. From the manner in which the statement he had made on Friday, had been received by the House, it was manifest it was their Lordships' intention to have the matter fully investigated, and he had no doubt the House would come to a decision upon it, one way or other, very soon; and it was in order to make the case of falsification of the documents clear, that he brought the subject again before their Lordships on the present occasion. The return to which he meant first to draw their ordships attention, was that presented in February. The document bore no date, but it purported to be an extract from the letter of Denis Phelan, Esq., assistant Poor-law Commissioner, and was as follows:— I have been intimately acquainted with Mr. Butler for twenty-seven years; during 5 the greater part of that time he was extensively engaged in the woollen trade, and conducted that business very respectably. He was also occupier of a tolerably large quantity of land. His character in these capacities was respectable, and without the slightest reproach. Mr. Butler lately retired from business, and resided in Clonmel as a private gentlemen. When the poor law union was about to be formed there, he applied to me for an introduction to the assistant commissioners, with the view of obtaining the situation of returning officer. To this request I acceded, feeling satisfied that his general character, business-like habits, and intimate knowledge of the country around; Clonmel and his being otherwise unemployed, were good qualifications for the office; and I shall be greatly disappointed if one of such intelligence and capacity Will not discharge his duties faithfully. I have, &c. (Signed) "DENIS PHELAN, Assist. P. L. Commissioner. He would now beg to call the attention of the House to the document presented in May. It was also the letter of Mr. Phelan, and commenced thus t— I have been intimately acquainted with Mr. Butler for twenty-seven years; during the greater part of that time, he was extensively engaged in the woollen trade, and conducted that business very respectably; he mm also occupier of a tolerably large quantity of land; his character in these capacities Was respectable, and without the slightest reproach. So far both the returns agreed. But what followed was totally different, as the House would see. The document presented in May proceeds thus;— Mr. Butler having applied to me for an introduction to the assistant commissioners with the view of obtaining the situation of returning officer, I acceded to his request, feeling satisfied that his general character, business-like habits, and intimate knowledge of the country around Clonmell, and his being otherwise unemployed, are good qualifications for the office; and I shall be greatly disappointed if one of such intelligence and capacity will not discharge his duties faithfully. Now in the last document to which he alt allusion to this person "having retired from business, and having lived as a private gentleman," was altogether omitted; and although this sight doubtless seem of little consequence to many noble Lords present, yet to him who understood the case, and knew well why the alteration had been made, it did appear of very great importance. After 6 the return ordered in February had been kid upon the Table, and which he believed to be the true one, certain circumstances occurred to which he should presently refer, which might have been attended with awkward consequences to the parties concerned, if exposed under their own hands, and therefore to screen themselves the documents had been falsified. The House would recollect that, on Friday last, he directed their Lordships' attention to a letter written by Mr. Bagwell, on the 9th of March, 1840; and the commissioners' answer to that communication distinctly stated that, although Butler had been recommended to the situation by the assistant Poor-law commissioners, yet, that his appointment had not been made, although on the 19th February, preceding, they had, in a letter to Mr. Fennell (which they suppressed) as distinctly stated, that the person recommended by the assistant commissioners had been appointed. Now, in the returns presented in May, as well as those made in February, the date of Phelan's communication had been omitted. In the May return, letter No. 1 was dated the 16th February; and Phelan's letter, No. 2, followed, but without date. It was to be inferred, however, that being classed No. 2, and No. 3, which follows—it being dated the 15th February—that it was written previous to that date, whereas, in his opinion, it was not written for a month after that date, and ought to have been placed No. 8 in the correspondence, it having been evidently written in consequence of the complaint made by Mr. Bagwell against the meditated appointment of Mr. Butler. The documents were falsified for the purpose of showing their Lordships that Phelan's opinion bad been taken previously to the appointment having been made, whereas it had not been done until afterwards. With respect to this person having "resided in Clonmel as a private gentleman," it certainly would be news to the inhabitants of the town, that such had been the case. It was true, this person had been a retail woollen draper, and had retired from business, bat no one ever before heard that he had retired with any property. It was impossible that when the assistant commissioners recommended a man for office as being "a private gentleman," that it should not have weight. The assistant commissioners must have had a very extraordinary idea of what was 7 the qualification necessary to constitute an Irish "private gentleman" inasmuch as the salary attached to the office to which this "private gentleman" had been recommended, was just ten pounds. Every one knew, that according as the law stood at present, it required a 10l. qualification to constitute a freeholder in Ireland; and if the bill before the House of Commons should pass into a law, he (Lord Glengall) made no doubt that the qualification necessary to give a patent of "private gentility" in Ireland would be reduced, in order to suit the spirit of the age, from its present standard of 10l. to 5l. In conclusion, the noble Earl said, he should place both the returns on the Table, and on a comparison it would be seen that one or other was false. It was not for him to say, that in falsifying the documents, the commissioners had committed a breach of the privileges of their Lordships' House. The question was in their Lordships' hands, and there he meant to leave it. As it was important to ascertain the dates of these letters of Mr. Phelan, he should move that a full report of the proceedings connected with the appointment of Mr. Butler, he laid on the Table of the House, together with the dates of the letters from Mr. Phelan, as they appeared in the returns of February and May last.