The Earl of Glengallrose to bring before their Lordships the subject of the falsification of certain returns which were moved for in that House. It was not necessary for him to enter into any long statement on the subject of the extraordinary and improper conduct which had been pursued, nor on the unconstitutional nature of this conduct. Nothing could be conceived more unconstitutional, nothing more detrimental to the public service, than the falsification of returns ordered by Parliament. There was no knowing where the mischief might end, if these returns were permitted with impunity to be falsified. Documents ordered by that House should at all times be correct, yet there could be no doubt, for it had been clearly proved, that the returns from the Poor-law commissioners' office in Ireland were incorrect. There could be no doubt that such falsification was a breach of privilege of their Lordships' House. But he was not inclined to consider it in that light. It was more, much more, than a mere breach of privilege, it was a contempt of the authority of their Lordships' House, and it was with a view to affirm that fact he framed his resolution. There was one point which was clearly ascertained by a reference to the journals of the House, that this was the first occasion when such a contempt had been committed. In all the records of their Lordships' House there was no precedent for such 1393 conduct on the part of public functionaries. It was reserved for the Irish Poor-law commissioners to make a precedent. The offence merely was this:—Certain returns were moved for from the office of the Poor-law commissioners, regarding the Clonmel Union, and certain correspondence respecting the appointment of returning officer to that union. One return was moved for on 1st of February, 1840, and in May, 1840, another return was moved for and made. In that last return there was a copy of a letter purporting to be written to an individual of the name of Fennell, it appeared in evidence taken at the bar, that the letter inserted in that return was not the true copy of the letter sent to Mr. Fennell; that the letter purporting to be an extract of the register, was written in a different shape from that in which it was made in the month of February. It also appeared in the return made in May, that an extract from the report of Mr. Phelan was returned in u different shape from that made in May, and it was also placed in a different position in the return, so as to deceive their Lordships. A third return was also ordered in the early part of the.Session of 1841, which proved that the two former were false returns. It was not necessary for him to prove these facts, they were fresh in their Lordships' recollections. There was one circumstance, however, connected with the privileges of their Lordships' House, to which he felt is his duty to advert. The Poor-law commissioners in Ireland appeared to have takes? a most singular view of the power they possessed to comply or not with an order of their Lordships' House. It appeared, that when their Lordships' House ordered copies of all correspondence between the Poor-law commissioners, in reference to the appointment in a particular union, they did not feel themselves bound to return the correspondence which took place between the assistant commissioners and other parties in reference to the appointment in a particular union, they did not feel themselves bound to return the correspondence which took place between the assistant commissioners and other parties in reference to the appointment. Such conduct, on their part, had been proved in the evidence at their Lordships' bar. This matter could not remain in this position, Let them suppose a correspondence to take place between the magistrates of 1394 Birmingham and the Home Secretary, and that their Lordships were to, order a return of that correspondence from the Home-office, and that it should so happen that the letters were addressed to the Under Secretary, and that the return from the Home-office was nil, would is not, he would ask, be a most improper return, and such as would be vi- sited with the just censure of the House? He (Lord Glengall) conceived that the words "all correspondence," included any letters that may have passed between the assistant commissioners and any other party; and that in suppressing any portion of the information required, the Poor-law Commissioners had acted in a manner which no other public functionaries would have presumed to do. There was another point to which he begged to direct their Lordships' attention, as it was one of great importance, and well worthy of remark. It struck many of their Lordships at the time the evidence was given at the bar, that in the manner in which the Poor-law business was conducted in Dublin, truth was little regarded. It did appear that the exact truth, the precise state of the case, was never considered when the commissioners were called on to return answers to applicants, it mattered not, it appeared, whether the answers sent were consistent with the truth, provided it saved them trouble, and satisfied the parties that there was no use in making further application. He could not conceive anything more scandalous than that truth should not be the basis on which a public body acted. Though there were other subjects of great importance in Ireland mooted in this Session of Parliament, he knew no subject that excited greater interest than did this Poor-law investigation. This was not to be wondered at, when thus considered—not only that the taxation of all property in the country was in the hands of those individuals who administered the law; but also, when they considered that on this act, in all probability, one of these days, the parliamentary franchise of the people of Ireland would be based. It was, therefore, of the highest importance that the administration of this law should be conducted on proper principles. It was also imperative that those appointed under it should be men of the highest character—men, in fact, whom the public would have reason to suppose would act with strict impartiality. Whether or no the 1395 officers appointed by the Poor-law Commissioners had acted with impartiality, their Lordships would decide from the evidence adduced at the bar. There were many, however, who thought that this was not the case, and he was compelled to state, that he did not think such strict impartiality had been observed in the appointments as the House was led to believe would be the case when the bill was in progress through Parliament. This belief was the cause of all the excitement that had taken place in Ireland. He could not dismiss the subject without noticing, in some respect, a point which, one of those days, when this matter progressed, he might be obliged to bring under their Lordships' consideration. It was a serious point, and very forcibly struck him at the time, but much more so since he had an opportunity of acquiring more knowledge on the subject. It was this—that he found great difficulty to reconcile with the truth the evidence given at that bar. But as there would probably be an opportunity afforded of that matter at length, he would reserve himself for that opportunity. With regard to the individual himself, who would probably come under their Lordships' censure, he was not disposed to ask that any severe punishment should be inflicted upon him; because he felt that though this person must be the chief sufferer, he could not but think, both from the evidence, as well as front understanding the case, knowing the circumstances and how it occurred, and what it was that probably led to the falsifications of those returns, he could not but think that Mr. Stanley had been the dupe of more subtle, more astute, and more deeply skilled parties than himself. Although it was manifest that the House must adopt his resolution, he hoped he should not hear it said, that there could be no motives for what had been done. He could not reconcile it to his mind, that all this tissue of falsehood was concocted without a motive. He had endeavoured not to be acrimonious in this matter, and he trusted that he should not be compelled by any such observations as he had alluded to, to throw away the pruning knife, and take up the axe in his reply. The noble Earl concluded by moving the following resolution:—
That it appears to this House, that Mr. William Stanley, secretary to the Poor-law Commissioners, did, in contempt of the au- 1396 thority of this House, make an alteration in a paper ordered to be laid before this House, after the order for laying such paper before this House had been received by him.
The Marquess of Normanbystated, that it was not his intention to take the discussion on this Resolution, but would reserve it for the next.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, the resolution was stronger than the case would justify, as their Lordships ought not only to take into consideration the act, but also the motive. His noble Friend (the Earl of Glengal) seemed to rest his case more on his knowledge of Clonmel than upon the evidence taken at the bar, upon which alone their Lordships would be justified in coming to a conclusion. Now, in that evidence he could not trace any corrupt or improper motive to Mr. Stanley. In his own opinion, Mr. Stanley was the least culpable of all the parties implicated in this transaction. At the proper time he would undertake to prove, that much greater culpability rested upon others than upon Mr. Stanley. He must also observe, that the proceedings of his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Normanby) against Mr. Stanley, were not founded in justice either. His noble Friend ought to have considered the evidence before he took any steps on it; and yet in the recess he had dismissed Mr. Stanley from his office. True it was, that Mr. Stanley had offered to resign it; but, under all the circumstances of the case, he thought that the noble Marquess ought not to have accepted that resignation.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that Mr. Stanley had been selected for punishment because he was the only person against whom the House could at present proceed. The only question before the House was a question of privilege, and the only person with whom it could deal was Mr. Stanley. Other persons might be more culpable, and his noble Friend near him, on another occasion, might be able to prove that such was the case, but at present Mr. Stanley was the only person the House could touch. He did not wish to press hard upon Mr. Stanley, but a great contempt of the authority of their Lordships' House had been committed by that individual; and if their Lordships did not mark that offence with their displeasure, there would be no security for the fidelity of any return which might hereafter be made to Parliament.
The Marquess of Normanbydenied, that he had acted with injustice to Mr. Stanley. He wished to call to the recollection of his noble Friend the situation in which the Government would be placed if it connived at all at such conduct as this. However unimportant this matter might be in itself, there was, nevertheless, a great question involved in it, and that was the securing the unimpeached fidelity of every return made to their Lordships. No man who had read the evidence could deny that a contempt of the authority of that House had been committed. He was glad to hear his noble Friend contend that Mr. Stanley had not been influenced by any corrupt motive. That was undoubtedly the case; his motive was to conceal a deficiency in the performance of his duty. He ought to have notified at the bottom of the page that he ought to have taken such and such a course, and that from the accumulation of business he had not. He thought that the offence had arisen from having wished to conceal a discrepancy which existed in his documents. If he had had the moral courage to have made the returns as they stood, and accounted for the discrepancy at the bottom of the page, he would not have been visited with their Lordships' censure. His own impression was, that it was the intention of the Poor-law commissioners to act fairly and impartially. Certainly it was the intention of the Government that the act should be fairly and impartially carried out. In proof of this they had selected as the principal person to carry the Poor-law act in Ireland into execution, one who had been engaged in superintending the operation of the Poor-law in England, and whose political opinions, so far as they were known, rather tended towards those entertained by the party opposite. Moreover, the evidence of Mr. Stanley went to show that the Irish government entertained the same desire that was entertained by the Government here, that this act should be impartially carried into effect. His noble Friend opposite had stated that his knowledge of Clonmel and its neighbourhood enabled him to penetrate the mystery that involved those. Now he could not conceive any thing more trifling than the corpus delicti in this case, of which so much had been said. An office of such trifling emolument could not be of much importance to the individual, and he could 1398 not conceive how any political object could be answered by the appointment of this individual to that office. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Stanley, he considered that the act committed by that individual was such as to render it impossible that he would be continued in the office. At the same time he was bound to say that all those to whom Mr. Stanley was known spoke of him as a person of unimpeachable integrity, and those under whom he had served felt sorry at the loss of his service. He hoped that the Poor-law commissioners would take care that in future this act should be carried out with the strictest impartiality, and without any political bias whatever.
§ The Duke of WellingtonMy Lords, allusion has been made by my noble Friend to the conduct, of Mr. Stanley. He has proposed a resolution on that subject, which I conceive to be very properly worded, and there is no doubt that this House must pass that resolution. There is another consideration involved in this question, arising not only out of the evidence before your Lordships, but also out of what we know from papers not yet printed, and also arising out of this discussion. My Lords, I have contended all along, that it is not the conduct of Mr. Stanley, or of any inferior and subordinate person that ought alone to come under your Lordships' consideration, but the conduct of the Poor-law commissioners themselves. I say that they should have prevented these things. I voted for the Irish Poor-law bill, and proposed amendments, which I believe induced your Lordships to pass this bill. I am sure that those amendments had the effect of inducing others to approve of that bill who would not have done so if those amendments had not been introduced. I did all this on the faith and assurance not only of the House and the Government, but of those Gentlemen themselves, that it would be carried into execution on the principle stated when it was carried through the House, namely, that the measure would be carried into execution in Ireland with the same strictness and fairness as it was in this country. In this expectation I have been altogether disappointed, and for this reason I am determined, when I get the other papers, to read every line of them, and probe the matter to the bottom, in order to see where the mischief lies. But recollect there is not only this case, 1399 but several other cases before your Lordships, in every one of which there is corruption. We cannot stop here with the resolution of my noble Friend. The Clonmel case is a very gross case. The noble Lord opposite has told us that the office can be but of little importance, as the salary is only from 10l. to 30l. a-year; but see what power the cilice gives. In this very case let your Lordships see what happened the next day, when the brother-in-law of this individual was appointed valuator, a situation which puts the property of every man in some degree in his power. We must go deeper into this question if we wish to do justice to Ireland, and to the gentlemen who hold property in that country. We must take care that their property shall not be left at the disposal of such miscreants, and we must make the Poor-law commissioners do their duty. I cannot conclude without adverting to another case, namely, the Naas case. What happened in the Naas case? A person was appointed a returning officer who had been convicted of forgery in the case of an officer of Dublin Castle. He was tried and convicted, was sentenced to transportation, was, I believe, on board the hulks, but certainly was in Newgate, one of the gaols of Dublin, awaiting the execution of his sentence. This man, convicted of forgery, was the man they selected to fill the office of returning officer, an office which gave him great influence in the return of the valuator. Having assisted in the carrying of that law, I am bound to see that justice is done; and I will, if I have power to do so, see that justice is done. The noble Lord opposite, when this case was first mentioned, stated that this was not the same person, and that there was a mistake as to the identity of the man; but I stated that I had reason to know that it was the same man, and yet the Poor-law commissioners appointed this man. When the assistant Poor-law commissioner is sent to make inquiries respecting the fitness of an individual, he makes his inquiry of the individual himself. He is told, as was the case in Clonmel, that there is a gentleman of large fortune of whom inquiry ought to be made, but he never thinks of asking him any question on the subject, for it was sufficient for him to know that he was the nephew of a person called the Archbishop to be satisfied of his fitness. It would be mere stuff to stop here; the persons on 1400 whom the House must call are the Poor-law commissioners themselves. Let them be taught to feel it their duty to keep a correct record of their proceedings, which they will be ready to produce at any time that the House or the Government may call for them. Let them be taught to feel that the House will not permit such conduct as this, and we will soon see an end to such abuses as those out of which the resolution of my noble Friend arises. In the course of the Session, when all the papers are before us, it will be absolutely necessary to take the entire subject into consideration, and we must see what shall be done to render it certain that this measure shall be as fairly carried into effect in Ireland as in this country.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that not having expected that the Naas case would be brought before the House, he had not brought papers with him. He did not mean to deny that the appointment was an improper one. This person was employed to write for a soldier's pension, the soldier being dead. The case was of such a nature that no imputation rested upon his moral character, and to such an extent was this impression entertained that after his release from prison the clerk of the peace continued him in his employment.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that they should have before the House an exact history of that man's proceedings. He had been greatly disappointed at the manner in which that act had been carried out, and he hoped that the House would not lose sight of the subject.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that in the last Session of Parliament he had brought the subject of the mal-administration of the Poor-laws in Ireland before their Lordships' notice, and had intended, but for the late period of the Session, to have moved for a select committee to inquire into the matter. He was prepared to prove that the whole thing had been most injuriously, most shamefully, and most grossly jobbed. He was sorry to say, moreover, that it had been made a religious question, and that the priests had most shamefully interfered in the appointment of the guardians and other officers. In short, the valuation of the country was placed in the vilest hands. If a committee were appointed, he (Lord Westmeath) was in a situation to prove that his statements were not in the least overcharged. In fact it would appear that nothing had been said, at his side of the House, at all equal to the 1401 statements which would he substantiated upon oath. He was astonished to hear his noble Friend (Earl Wicklow) offer excuses for the conduct of the commissioners. The commissioners had notice from Mr. Bagwell that this Butler was an improper person, and yet without making any inquiry, they appointed him. he did not wish to speak uncharitably, or to press severely upon any man, particularly when he was pressed down by misfortune, but he felt constrained to say it was absolutely necessary that this matter should be carried much further. If the law were not properly administered the landed property would be ruined, while, on the other hand, if the views of parliament were fairly carried out, he hoped much benefit would eventually arise to the country from the enactment. He could not conclude without expressing his best thanks to the noble Duke for the statement made that night, and his intention to see the law fairly administered.
The Earl of Wicklowhad not defended Mr. Stanley's conduct, but merely stated that he had been singled out for punishment, though he seemed the person least concerned in these transactions.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, as was his custom, he had placed on the Table the documents on which he founded his statement. When the Clonmel case should have been thoroughly sifted it would be found that he had been more than justified in the course he had taken. It should be recollected that in a Parliamentary borough like Clonmel an office of this kind was of great importance. Now in Clogheen and other unions they had appointed the high constable returning officer, but this rule, which the commissioners acted on elsewhere, had been particularly departed from in the parliamentary boroughs of Clonmel and Cash el. The returning officer was an important officer in a borough town. He was able to return a partisan board of guardians. Now, in this case what was to be done? The board of guardians appointed the brother-in-law of the returning-officer to be valuator, and when his appointment was not allowed, they then appointed his nephew. Besides this, relatives of his were appointed master and mistress of the poor-house. He moved the resolution.
§ Resolution agreed to.
The Earl of Glengallthen moved, that Mr. Stanley be ordered to appear at the bar of their Lordships' House on Friday, the 14th of May inst.
The Marquess of Normanbytrusted that 1402 the House would think that their dignity had been sufficiently satisfied. He hoped their Lordships would feel that this individual had been sufficiently punished by the loss of his office. He would remind their Lordships that Mr. Nichols had stated on oath, that Mr. Stanley was in such a state of nervousness that his life might be endangered if he were again to be subjected to any further proceedings. He hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend would feel that, the dignity of the House had been sufficiently vindicated.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the motion of his noble Friend was the most lenient he could have made. However, as it had been stated that Mr. Stanley's state of health was such that his appearance at the bar might have a most injurious effect upon him, he considered that the object might be answered by embodying that fact in a resolution, and having it entered on the journals.
Lord Ellenborough, drew up a resolution se[...]ing forth that, upon a motion made that Mr. Stanley, the assistant secretary to the Poor-law commissioners, be ordered to attend at their Lordships' bar, a noble Lord stated that Mr. Stanley's health was such as to make it dangerous for him to attend, and the motion for his attendance was, therefore, withdrawn.
The Earl of Glengallwithdrew his resolution, and moved it in the amended form in which it had been read by Lord Ellenborough.
§ Resolution agreed to, and ordered to be entered on the journals.
The Earl of Glengallalso moved, that there be laid before their Lordships a copy of the resignation of Mr..Stanley of the office of Assistant-secretary to the Poor-law commissioners, and the minutes of the board accepting such resignation.—Agreed to.—Adjourned.