Lords Sitting of 22 March 1841

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord Strafford, from Liverpool, for an Equalisation of the Sugar and Coffee Duties; and from Londonderry, and Donegal, for the Abolition of Lay Patronage in the Church of Scotland.

THE REV. MR. CANDLISH.
The Duke of Argyllsaid, having more fully considered the circumstances which had taken place with regard to the rev. Mr. Candlish, he could not but express his great regret that the noble Marquess opposite should have found himself obliged to act with regard to him as he had done, and this opinion was founded upon his conviction that the rev. Mr. Candlish had broken no law in having disregarded the interdict of the Court of Session, forbidding him to exercise his purely spiritual functions in any place he might think proper. The competency of these interdicts of the Court of Session he entirely denied. The constitution of the Scottish Church, confirmed by the Act of Union, was entire liberty to the ministers of the church to exercise their spiritual functions wherever they chose, and the interdict
452
appeared to him to be an incompetent attempt to deprive them of their liberty; and he more particularly regretted that Mr. Candlish should have lost his appointment, as thereby Scotland had been deprived of the services of one so peculiarly fitted for the duties of the situation that had been intended for him. As this question would shortly be brought before their Lordships for decision, he would not say more upon the subject at present.
The Marquess of Normanbyunderstood the noble Duke to express his regret at the course which had been adopted with regard to the rev. Mr. Candlish, and the reason which he had assigned for this opinion was, that that gentleman had not violated the law. He would not now enter into a consideration of that question, ft would be highly improper that he should, as there was a legal inquiry into the circumstances at present going on. He thought that the fairest course to pursue would be, to say nothing until the report upon that inquiry was laid before their Lordships.
Subject at an end.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND.)—CLONMELL UNION.
The Earl of Glengallrose to move, that Mr. Phelan, assistant Poor-law Commissioner in Ireland, should be called to the bar and examined. The noble Earl said, that before doing so, he thought it but justice to say, that he had that day received a letter from Mr. Bagwell, whose name had been mentioned in that investigation, denying that he was actuated by any improper motive in his opposition to the appointment of Mr. Butler as returning officer, or that it was because he happened to be a relative of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, as stated by Mr. Stanley in his evidence before their Lordships. He would read the letter he had received:—
"Marlfield, March 19, 1841.
"My dear Lord—It appears by the Dublin Evening Post of the 18th inst., a copy of which I send you by this post, that in the course of your examination of Mr. Stanley, on the 18th inst., a letter was read from Mr. Hawley, assistant commissioner to the Poor-law Commission in Dublin, in which Mr. Hawley is represented to have stated, that Mr. Butler was the nephew of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel, a very respectable man, and that the charges brought against him by Mr. Bagwell could only be attributed to the fact, that he

453
was the nephew of the Roman Catholic Archbishop. As I presume that the examination of the witnesses, with reference to this union, will be left principally in your hands, I wish to direct your attention to the imputation thus cast upon me by Mr. Hawley, in order that if that gentleman should come under examination in the House of Lords, he may be required to explain and justify such a statement as the one above quoted. I need scarcely add, that I was quite ignorant of any relationship between Mr. Butler and the Titular Archbishop of Cashel, until I saw Mr. Hawley's letter in print this morning.—I have the honour to he, my dear Lord, yours very truly,
"JOHN BAGWELL.
"I have also written on this subject to Lord Normanby."
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he also had received a similar letter from Mr. Bagwell, and that he had written to that gentleman, stating that he disbelieved the imputation.
The Earl of Wicklowthought that they ought to have Mr. Hawley there, for it appeared to him that Mr. Hawley was the most culpable person engaged in the transaction.
The Marquess of Normanbythought it would be proper to have Mr Hawley examined at the bar.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, they should recollect where they were going. He was anxious to have Mr. Hawley examined, but it appeared to him that, if they were to make inquiry into the conduct of the commissioners, they had better make it altogether, and not by halves.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, the object of their present inquiry was, to ascertain on what grounds an alteration had been made in the language of a letter, and by whose advice and sanction that alteration was made. A general investigation into the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners would extend the subject to a much greater length.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the most important part of the inquiry was, by whom was the alteration made?
The Earl of Glengullsaid, his object was to get at the point mentioned by his noble Friend, but an inquiry into the general working of the Poor-laws could only be done by a committee up stairs.
Lord Fitzgeraldthought that it was due to Mr. Hawley, that he should be afforded an opportunity of explanation.
Mr. Phelan, an assistant Poor-law Com-
454
missioner for Ireland, was called to the Bar, and his examination occupied the whole sitting.
Adjourned.