The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid, that in consequence of what had passed yesterday evening in their Lordships' House, with regard to the examination of a witness before the Committee on the Irish Poor Law, the Committee had again examined him, and had come to the opinion that the date of the document in question was anterior to the sitting of the Committee, and that the citation to Mr. Gulson was to produce it suo motu, and not by order of the Committee. This was the substance of what had passed before the Committee to-day, and he should not go any further into the matter.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory as far as it went, because it showed that there was not a requisition by the Committee, and a refusal to comply with it by the witness. He quite disagreed in what had been said yesterday of the irregularity of the discussion, for the noble Earl had been asked, as Chairman of the Committee, as to a matter which had taken place before them. There was nothing irregular in this, if their Lordships were to have any privileges.
The EARL of CLANCARTYadmitted that he ought not to have used the term "irregular." He did not mean it in the sense given to it by the noble and learned Lord, whom he would be the last person in that House to charge with being irregular.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he was justified in yesterday withholding any opinion condemnatory of the Poor Law Commissioners, by what he had since learned. Mr. Gulson wrote to the Poor Law Commissioners 1272 on the 12th of February, asking their permission to make use of certain documents on being examined before their Lordships' Committee, he being then totally ignorant whether those documents would or would not be called for, and desiring to have them, for the purpose of enabling him to make his statement before the Committee fair, clear, and satisfactory. The answer he received did not for a moment suggest that the Commissioners would withhold any information whatever, either oral or written, that their Lordships' Committee or either Houses of Parliament might require; but contained this statement, that they (the Commissioners) did not conceive, without further communication on the subject, that those documents should be voluntarily produced. There had, therefore, been no refusal on the part of the Commissioners to grant the required Papers, and no obstruction to the proceedings of that House. The matter was one certainly which called for the instantaneous interference of the House; but, on seeing that no obstruction had been intended, and no refusal made to any request of their Lordships, he conceived they were bound as rapidly and as decidedly to free the parties from imputation — the Poor Law Commissioners as well as Mr. Gulson.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the best way to decide the question was, by producing the letter of Mr. Gulson and the Commissioners' answer.
§ The EARL of CLAREsaid, he believed there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners to withhold any Papers or information from their Lordships' Committee.