Lords Sitting of 18 March 1841

MINUTES
Bills. Read a first time;—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; East-India Rum.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Argyle, from various places against Church Patronage (Scotland)—By the Duke of Cleveland, from Stockton, in favour of Drainage of Towns Bill.—By the Bishop of Bangor, from Anglesea, against the union of the Bishoprics of St. Asaph and Bangor.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CLONMEL UNION.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, before his noble Friend opposite moved that the examination of Mr. Stanley be resumed, he felt it right to state to their Lordships, that he had received a letter from Mr. Shaw Lefevre, one of the Poor-law Commissioners, as to the omission of a paragraph in one of the letters which had been laid on their Lordships' Table, relative to the appointment of Mr. Butler as returning officer to the Clonmel Union. Mr. Lefevre stated, that himself and Mr. Lewis had looked over the returns to that House, and had approved of the omission of the paragraph in question, as it had not the slightest relation to any matter conducted either with the election of the returning officer for the Clonmel Union, or to any proceedings connected with the Poor-law. Their Lordships had the letter now printed in their hands, and the passage in question merely stated, that the writer had seen the Attorney general three times, who had seemed well-disposed towards him, but that nothing had been done; and requesting that the person to whom the letter was addressed, would, if he saw the Attorney-general, remind him of the matter. Under these circumstances' the Poor-law Commissioners omitted that portion, the last paragraph of the letter, which they conceived to be of a private nature. With respect to Mr. Nicholls, his impression was the same as that of his noble Friend, that that gentleman's absence from Ireland would be very inconvenient. There were, however, important matters that would detain him in town a few days longer; and he announced this, on the part of Mr. Nicholls, in order that any noble Lord who thought fit might have an opportunity of examining that gentleman.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought it was better that Mr. Nicholls should appear at the bar. One point had struck him forcibly when the noble Marquess was reading the extract from the letter. It was obvious, he thought, from that let-

335
ter, that this Mr. Butler was a dealer in politics; and, if his recollection served him, that on which the Poor-law Commissioners for Ireland most prided themselves, that which they had said over and over again, was, "We must take care to have nothing to say to politicians;" and yet, with that letter before them, they appointed this person. That showed how necessary it was that the act of Parliament should be obeyed, and that all the motives of appointment should be inserted on the records; so that, when any one complained of those appointments, they should have before them the whole of the proceedings. They ought to have possession of every part of the records, in order that they should know really what had been the motives for these appointments, and what the character of the individual appointed. The clause in the act of Parliament was little obeyed in Ireland, and, he feared, as little in England. The consequence was, that it was impossible to trace any act of the commissioners. They were in the hands of this board, who possessed unlimited authority to do what they pleased, and who kept no regular record of their transactions.
Lord Ellenboroughcould not agree with the noble Marquess when he said, that the concluding paragraph of this letter was unconnected with the appointment of Mr. Butler. His impression was, that when Butler inserted the paragraph in his letter to Mr. Phelan, the idea of the writer was, that if Mr. Phelan showed it to the Attorney-general, the latter would say—"It is true he has been of use to me in Clonmel, and he is a very troublesome fellow. It would be quite as well to get rid of him at once; and if you can give him the place, it would be a great relief to me."
The Marquess of Normanbyperfectly agreed with the noble Lord, that, on the face of the letter, it would appear that Mr. Butler was a political partisan. At the same time, he believed, that the commissioners were, bonâ fide most anxious to appoint persons as little conversant with politics as was possible in Ireland. The noble Earl could not say that Mr. Fennell, the opponent of Mr. Butler, was not well known as a political partisan.
The Earl of Glengall: I can say so positively, but his brother is.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad certainly heard the name of Fennell often mentioned in connexion with the party politics of Clonmel,
The Earl of Glengall: That is Mr. Fennell's brother.
The Marquess of Normanbydid not think that there were two Fennells; but he knew that there was one of the name a partisan, if not two. There was no proof at present, that the commissioners ever saw the letter of Mr. Phelan.
Lord Fitzgeraldsaid, the statement of the noble Marquess was at variance with that of the witness Stanley, for he bad informed them that it was understood that the appointment had taken place on the recommendation of Mr. Phelan.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, Mr. Phelan must have known that Mr. Butler was a politician, for he either proposed or seconded the Member for Clonmel.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, there was nothing to show that the Poor-law Commissioners knew that he was a politician.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, Mr. Butler seemed capable of producing evidence of an extraordinary and contradictory nature, for in one of his letters he stated to the Poor law Commissioners not only that he did not attend any political meetings, but that he did not belong to any political party whatever.
The Earl of Glengall The Earl of Glengall moved, that Mr. William Stanley be called to the bar.
Mr. Stanleywas re-examined at great length. Mr. Wordsworth, a clerk in the Poor-law commissioners office in Dublin was also examined. The evidence was ordered to be printed, and the House adjourned.