§ The EARL of CLARENDONreplied in the negative.
LORD BROUGHAMinquired if the noble Lord had any information as to complaints which he had seen publicly made against landed proprietors in Ireland, that they were availing themselves of the measures of relief in that country, and were placing their relatives on the staff of the works. If these statements were not founded on facts, they certainly ought to be contradicted.
§ The EARL of CLARENDONreplied, that he had received no information on the subject, but had no doubt where so many persons were employed on the staff, that some landed proprietors might have relatives among them.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHthought the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) should take care, whenever he brought up matters of this kind, to be prepared with particular cases, in order that they might be specifically investigated. 499 Considering the cry that was going against Irish proprietors, it was right that inquiry should be made into such matters, and, for his own part, the closer they were examined, the better satisfied he would be.
LORD BROUGHAMwas quite sure of it. The statement to which he particularly referred, appeared in an Irish paper, and was to the effect, that a landed proprietor and a clergyman in the county of Sligo had procured for their sons the situations of inspectors under the Board of Works, at a very considerable salary, and that in the district to which they had been appointed, only seven labourers were receiving pay.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEcould not say whether the case to which the noble and learned Lord referred, were true or not; but he could not see any reason why the sons and relatives of persons of property, qualified in other respects, should not be employed under the board in any locality in which they had no local interests likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of their duties.