HL Deb 01 August 1854 vol 135 cc1079-83
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

My Lords, in moving for the papers and correspondence of which I have given notice, I must take the opportunity of vindicating myself and my honour against a charge which has been made by another person in another place, seriously affecting my personal honour and character for veracity. I feel, my Lords, that it may be of little importance to the world at large what may be the character of so humble an individual as myself; but, as a Member of your Lordships' House, it is a matter of some importance that I should stand erect before you, and either refute the charge which has been made, or submit to the contumely which its confirmation would inflict upon me. I am able, my Lords, to give the flattest possible contradiction to every item of the charge which has been made. It will be within your recollection that some time ago I made a statement, in which I mentioned that, during the transactions of the Board of Health, a meeting was held at which a certain noble Lord was present, at which I myself was present, and at which other Commissioners were present—that the noble Lord made a proposal, and that that proposal fell. The noble Lord stated that it fell in consequence of not being seconded. My assertion was that the term "seconded" never occurred—that it never was seconded—that the term never was used—that the proposal was made, and that it was met by myself. In opposition to this, I heard a statement made yesterday by the noble Lord in these words— He had gone to the Board on several occasions; he went to them, for example, on the 30th of January, 1851, at the request of the Government in a special case. .. He went to the Board of Health on this subject. This was on the 30th of January, 1851 The Board read to him a long letter of seven pages, which they had prepared, and in which they argued the point with the Treasury. Thereupon, as the minutes recorded, —'Lord Seymour moved that a letter should be sent instead of the proposed draught, stating that the Board are ready to act on the suggestions contained in the Treasury letter. This motion not being seconded, Lord Seymour stated that he wished that the Treasury should be informed, when the Board's letter is transmitted, that he differs from it.' Now, as to this matter, Lord Shaftesbury, in his place elsewhere, had stated that the thing had not happened as he (Lord Seymour) had described it on a former occasion. Lord Shaftesbury, speaking upon his honour, spoke, it was to be remembered, upon the information of the secretary—not having been himself present on the occasion—whereas he (Lord Seymour), having been present, spoke from his own recollection. Mark the words! This is the way in which the noble Lord strikes down another man's honour, and endeavours to erect his own. He solemnly affirms, in opposition to my former statement, that I was not present. In the first place, I give my word of honour solemnly, and in the most emphatic manner that a gentleman can do, and under the most solemn obligations of an oath, that I was present. I give my word of honour that I was the person who spoke upon the subject, and that my colleagues said not a word. The noble Lord has committed himself by specifying the date. It is possible that there might have been a day on which I was not present; but he specifies three times emphatically, that upon the 30th of January, 1851, he went to that Board—that he made a proposal—that I was not there—and that I, speaking on my honour, when I assert that I was there, have asserted that which is untrue. Now, I state first, upon my word of honour as a gentleman, that I was there. Hear next the evidence—and first the written testimony of two of my colleagues— The General Board of Health, Whitehall, "August 1, 1854. We declare most solemnly that we were present at a Board held on the 30th of January, 1851, the day on which it is recorded in the minutes that 'Lord Seymour attended and made a motion that was not seconded,' and we further declare that Lord Shaftesbury was present and made the proposition which was adopted. On our remembrance being called to Lord Seymour's allegation that he had been told that his motion had not been seconded, we declare that he was not so told by us, or by Lord Shaftesbury in our presence on that occasion; nor do we believe that he was so told on any other occasion whatsoever. EDWIN CHADWICK. T. SOTJTHWOOD SMITH. Hear now the letter from Mr. Macaulay, the secretary, who was present at the time, and who writes to me to-day in the following terms— My impression is, that you were present at the meeting of the Board on the 30th of January, 1851. The matter, however, can be placed beyond the possibility of doubt by reference to the fair and rough minutes of the 30th of January, where the attendances of each member of the Board are carefully recorded. "C. MACAULAY. What say the minutes? I refer to the fair minutes—I refer to the rough minutes, and I find— Extract from minutes of Thursday, January 30, 1851. Present—Lord Seymour, M.P.; Lord Ashley, M.P.; Edwin Chadwick, Esq.; Dr. S. Smith. And now I am to be told, in the presence of the country and of the House of Commons, that, speaking upon my honour, I have been guilty of a falsehood when I assert what I have done, not upon any single testimony alone, but supported by that of my two colleagues, of the secretary, and of the minutes, which cannot lie. Now, one more statement. He goes on to say— Lord Shaftesbury had made it a charge against him that he had never attended the Board; this was not the case, though it was the case that he had ceased to attend the Board when he had found by experience that it was to no purpose that he attended a Board where he was systematically overborne, while he could occupy his time to really useful public purposes in Ids own office. The noble Earl had added that he (Lord Seymour) had told him, in confidence, that he never meant to do anything that he was not compelled to do. He would not be so discourteous as to go into any discussion with the noble Earl as to the expression so attributed to him; all he would observe was, that if he had said this to the noble Earl in confidence, his confidence had been much misplaced. Hear what I did say,—I asserted that he stayed away, not because he was opposed, but because he had predetermined not to come, and I proved it by his statement to me a few days after he took office, that he could not attend, by his allowing sixty-eight Boards to be held between his first and second attendance, five between the second and third, ten between the third and fourth, and ninety-four between the fourth and fifth, when for the first and only time he met with a difference of opinion. I say that this completely proves that he never intended to come to the Board; and when he says he did not come because he was constantly overborne, my simple reply to him is, that he never did intend to come. Again, he says that he told me in confidence that he never meant to do anything he was not compelled to do. I never said that Lord Seymour had said to me in confidence that he would not do more than he was compelled to do. Lord Seymour never said it in confidence to any one; he said it to myself, he said it to my colleagues, he said it to Lord Ebrington, and he wrote it to the Board on the 14th of January, 1851, in these words— It is not in my power to attend the meetings of the Board of Health without neglect of my duties here. Further on, speaking of the period when the powers of the Board of Health as conferred by the Act were about to close, the noble Lord said— This was precisely the time when the Legislature was properly called upon to review the operation of the measure, and nothing could be more unreasonable than the proposition of a noble Earl elsewhere—the non-official member and patron of the Board (Lord Shaftesbury)—that such review of its proceedings was an unhandsome attack upon absent individuals. I never said that, nor anything like that. I said that for any gentleman to speak of men like his then colleagues, and to say that they "could be made to do their duty only by fear of losing their salaries," was an indecent and cruel charge which ought not to be made against absent men—against men to whom no notice had been given, and who, therefore, had no means of denying what was said. That is what I said, and what I most emphatically repeat, for I think that a charge made in such a tone and temper and manner against gentlemen as good in every respect as himself was an act of gross and intolerable indecency. In order," he says, "that such objectionable proceedings might not occur again, he had sent to the Board of Health requiring copies of all the minutes of their proceedings, so that he might see what was going on, it being impossible for him at that time—the Board of Works and the Board of Woods being then united—to attend at the Board of Health, who were in the habit of holding Boards every day for some three or four minutes per diem." Now, anything more unwarrantable, and, I say again, more cruel, towards those meritorious and hard-working men, I never yet heard. I will undertake to prove that the average attendances at that Board were five hours a day at least—sometimes six or seven hours; and, when the cholera was raging, and in times of great pressure, as much as ten hours a day. Almost every night, also, business was taken home by the two Commissioners, on which they had to occupy themselves during the night, in order to prepare themselves to receive deputations or to transact important business on the following morning. The noble Lord went on to say— He must express the opinion that the jobbing of the Board of Health presented an amount of dirt which must be very startling to the clean party in question. The whole thing was perfectly monstrous. Here, again, is a charge of corruption which he knows well he cannot prove! This he calls, no doubt, "a review of the Board's proceedings;" without inquiry, without power of reply on the part of the accused. Is it wise, is it just, is it safe that any body of legislators should proceed to act upon such evidence as this? These are samples of the whole speech; there is hardly an assertion that might not be met by as flat a contradiction. They show the spirit of the man, the character of his charges, and the whole system of the attacks on the Board. He was pleased to reflect very contemptuously on myself and all my public actions and opinions. Partly through indifference, and partly through inability, I shall not endeavour to make any reply. It may be an infirmity, or even a vice, but so the fact is, that I do not much care for the opinion of my contemporaries, and nothing at all for the opinion of posterity, What I do care for is the conviction that I have, by God's blessing, "done my duty in that state of life to which it has pleased God to call me," and that conviction cannot be taken away either by Lord Seymour or the House of Commons. The noble Earl concluded by moving— That there be laid before this House, Copies of any Correspondence from Local Boards of Health in reply to Inquiries from Towns where the Application of the Public Health Act was under Consideration; and also of any Communications from Chairmen or Officers of Local Boards on the opposition made to the Continuance of the General Board: And also, Copy of any Memorial from the Clergy of the Metropolis in relation to the Metropolitan Interment Act.

On Question, agreed to.

House adjourned to Thursday next.