HC Deb 12 May 1865 vol 179 cc216-33
MR. DISRAELI

Sir, I hope the House will not lend an indifferent ear to the short statement which I have to make tonight, under the impression that the subject is one simply of local interest. I can assure the House it is one of general, and so far as England is concerned one of universal interest, for it concerns every Board of Guardians in the kingdom. The House will agree with me that it is important there should be a clear understanding as to the relative duties of the Central Board and the Boards of Guardians throughout the country; for unless there is that clear understanding there is necessarily a chance of great confusion in the public business, and great neglect occasionally of the public interests. In the case I am about to bring before the House there appears to have been considerable and injurious neglect. I cannot pretend that I have not myself formed an opinion as to what body that neglect is to be attributed; but I will say to those representing the Poor Law Board to-night that, so far as I am concerned, I bring this question before them in a spirit of candour, in order to give them an opportunity of entering into explanations which may remove a strong sense of discontent and indignation now existing in a considerable district; and if the explanation is satisfactory I shall not hesitate to admit that it is so. The Wycombe Union consists of thirty parishes in the southern part of the county of Buckingham, and contains a population exceeding 35,000. The union house, which is a new structure, built within a few years from the design of Mr. Scott, is at Sanderton, and about six or seven miles from this union house, at a place called Bledlow, there is the union school. Within two or three years a person named Harold Stallwood was appointed master, and his wife matron, of the union school at Bledlow. He was apparently a man well qualified for the post, of fair fame, very good talent, and considerable experience in connection with the administration of the Poor Law, because he had been a relieving officer in one of the districts of the county before this appointment. Although there was this distance between the union house (the central point of the union) and the union schools, I am bound to say there has been, as far as I can form an opinion, a satisfactory system of visiting and inspecting the schools. There was a system of periodical and continuous visiting by committees of the Board of Guardians; and also, which is of importance, the schools at Bledlow had been frequently and constantly visited by the Poor Law Commissioner of the district. At Bledlow, besides these union schools, there had been an industrial school, which rendered the frequent attendance of the Commissioner necessary. He was a man by education and position fitted for and active and zealous in the discharge of his duties. I mention this, because, as the House will see, under his inspection, which gave general satisfaction to the community, occurrences happened which were hardly to be expected under a system of efficient inspection but, at the same time, I am bound to express my opinion that no blame is to be imputed on the score of neglect either to the guardians or to the Poor Law Inspector. We all know that in much higher places than union schools, or institutions of that kind, very often practices come to light highly to be reprobated, but which have continued for a long term of years under critical and conscientious administrations. We know also that crime in authority has great advantages for securing secresy. First of all, a kind of terror is exercised over subordinates, and that, accompanied by ingenuity, will baffle the otherwise disinterested vigilance of those who, under ordinary circumstances, might discover the offence. At the beginning of the year a rumour reached the guardians of the Wycombe Union (who on the whole possess the general confidence of the district), that an act of great barbarity had been practised at the school at Bledlow—that a boy had been punished in a manner which no circumstances could justify. So strong was the feeling of the mother of the boy who was herself an inmate of the union house at Sanderton—she became so alarmed by this rumour—that she absolutely claimed her discharge from the union house, and went to Bledlow to ascertain the truth for herself. She there learned enough to induce her to claim an audience of the chairman and some of the chief guardians; and the result was that a general meeting of the guardians was called at the school at Bledlow. There in the course of forty-eight hours they were all assembled. The question of the punishment of this boy was investigated. The evidence also of several of his companions who had been treated with extraordinary cruelty was taken from their own mouths. It came out in the examination that these severe punishments on the part of the master were rather, it seemed, produced by a desire to establish a system of terror than from any abstract practice of cruelty. It appeared that the boys had heard rumours of indecent conduct of the master with female pauper pupils in the institution, who, of course, were mainly under the direction of the matron. The boys had heard of these things and talked of them among themselves; and the master had recourse to these severe punishments, which were of an outrageous character—threatening even the lives of the boys by holding a knife to their throats and menaces of that kind—evidently for the purpose of by terror suppressing the conversation of the boys, and not from any habitual cruelty on his part. This led to a further examination. It was necessary to examine the girls. That was done on the 13th of February, when a great deal of evidence was taken showing that a system of profligacy of a very heartless and heinous description had been practised for a long time by the master of the school. It is not necessary to go into details because there is no controversy between the Board of Guardians and the Poor Law Board as to the nature and character of this offence of the master. It is agreed that his conduct was most profligate and indefensible. The guardians passed that day in taking evidence. The evidence taken cannot be called ex-parte, because Stallwood was present, and he was permitted to make observations if he pleased; but generally speaking he kept a strict silence, and merely denied the whole affair, saying that the boys were telling lies, so that what fell from him threw no light on the subject. The guardians were of opinion, after consultation, that the evidence should be forwarded immediately to the Central Board in London, who should be asked to send down some person to investigate the matter. I am perfectly willing to admit that it would have been better if the Board of Guardians had acted on the moment with more decision; if, for example, they had said, "There is sufficient evidence of indecent assaults to bring this man before the magistrates and have him committed for trial." So far the thing might have been met immediately. But that is not a view of the case which can be urged by the Central Board in London. They never took that view. This, however, must be said for the Board of Guardians. All boards, we know, act with hesitation, and no board is so timid as a Board of Guardians, because, though intrusted with very great administrative duties, their absolute authority is very slight. In this very Board, though their affairs are administered with ability, and although generally they possess the respect of the community, it was not very long ago that a subordinate officer having behaved in an unjustifiable manner (not in a manner so heinous as the present case) was dismissed. In that case these very guardians received a severe reproof from the Central Board, and were told they had no authority to dismiss their subordinate officer. I am not mentioning that as any charge against the Central Board, whose legal authority must be obeyed; but the guardians remembering that, and acting perhaps with rather more hesitancy than they otherwise would, feeling that this affair at Bledlow was of a more extensive and deeper nature than it first appeared, and alarmed to find that all the subordinate officials were under the influence of the man Stallwood, an able man, and were disinclined to give information; feeling that the matter ought to be dealt with authoritatively, and that the evidence which was to be the basis of a criminal indictment should be precise and authentic, and that it would not be satisfactory to have it taken by a mere Board of Guardians, which could not administer an oath or conduct such an investigation with the acuteness and authority that were indispensable—influenced by these considerations, they were extremely anxious, and urged that a person of authority should be sent down from London to conduct the inquiry. They accordingly forwarded that evening, or the following morning, all the evidence which had been given, and earnestly urged the Central Board to take up the matter and institute an investigation. That letter was written on the 14th of February. No answer was ever received to that letter. This case, of course, created considerable excitement in the neighbourhood. Rumours spread, and the want of precise knowledge caused them to be exaggerated. The general effect produced was one of much alarm and disquietude. Guardians belonging to different villages, and frequenting different markets, were anxious to know whether any communication had been received from the Central Board in London in answer to the letter which had been sent up. Days flew over; a week elapsed; and on the 20th, which would be the next meeting of the guardians at Sanderton, they had the mortification of finding that they had no answer. A letter, however, awaited them from the schoolmaster, Stallwood, whose conduct had been so much impugned, and who was placed in so remarkable a position; and this letter was a resignation of his office on the plea of the illness of his wife, and contained a request that the guardians would give him a general certificate of good conduct. Well, the guardians were in a very embarrassing position. A week had elapsed without any answer being received from London, and they felt at last that they must act. They had the man called in and informed him that they could not accept his resignation, but they suspended him from his office. They then wrote up to London within an hour, sent to the Poor Law Board the schoolmaster's letter of resignation, and announced the course they had taken in suspending him from his office. That letter must have been written on the 20th, but no answer wa3 received to the urgent communication from the Board of Guardians on the 14th, or to the letter of the 20th. Besides suspending the schoolmaster from his office, the guardians, as it was necessary to make provision for carrying on the schools, appointed a committee of their body for the purpose. The committee made arrangements to visit Bledlow daily, to report to the union house how affairs were going on, make temporary arrangements for conducting the school, and, of course, report to the Board of Guardians at their next meeting, which would be on the 27th. During this period the guardians received no answer to their letters. But at last the Poor Law Board sent down the Poor Law Inspector of the district, a gentleman of the name of Cane, but he did not apply to the guardians, he did not apply to a portion of them, he did not even go to the usual place where they met—the union house at Sanderton, but he went to Bledlow, and there on his own authority, directed the schoolmaster and his wife, the matron, to send their immediate, written, and unconditional resignation of their offices to him. A meeting of the guardians, whether casually or by arrangement, had taken place to make arrangements for temporarily carrying on the educational establishments—both the industrial school and the union schools. Mr. Cane told them that the affair was finished, that the resignation being complete and unconditional, the places of the schoolmaster and matron were vacant, that the guardians had no further authority over the individuals; and that all that they had to do was to accept the resignations on his advice and responsibility, and to make temporary arrangements. I do not know what were the motives of the Poor Law Inspector, but of course I sincerely give him credit for the best motives. The best motives, however, in point of feeling, may be most erroneous in point of policy. I do not understand that the case of Mr. Cane was an exception to that principle. It was possible Mr. Cane might have thought, "This is a grave scandal; an investigation into these circumstances, as suggested by the guardians of the Wycombe Union, will lead to evidence most offensive to the public taste and to public morality; we shall have details of a very disgusting character; and the best thing, therefore, I can do is to hush it up." He may have been—he probably was—influenced by that feeling. Now, hushing up a private scandal may be an act of wisdom or of charity, and an act of charity is generally an act of wisdom. But when you come to a public scandal, it is a very different thing. Generally it is not wise to hush up a public scandal. It is more than a questionable, nay, it is a foolish act, because in the nature of things, enough always is known in a public scandal to attract great public attention, and unless matters are investigated they assume, in the imagination of the public, larger and more horrid features than they really possess. Nothing can be more inconvenient, nothing more distressing in any society, especially in society of the innocent character which generally pervades a quiet rural district, than an investigation into such charges as I have intimated, charges of gross immorality to be spread about in every village in the union. But, in order to avoid such consequences and such inconvenience, and, in a certain sense, the injuries of such a course, would you lay it down as a principle that a criminal is to be left with impunity because the proof of his crime may produce indelicate and distressing details in the society which he has outraged? It seems to me quite impossible to sustain such a position. Then where are you to stop? where draw the line? When the investigation involves details that are contra bonos mores are you to say that these crimes, the most offensive to society, shall be treated with impunity? If Mr. Cane was influenced by a wish to hush up the matter, though I give him credit for amiability of feeling, I I do not think it is a course which ought to be approved of by the superiors of the Department, or by the authority of this House. It may be said that these peculiar cases, though capable of moral proof, are not always capable of that legal proof which is necessary to obtain a conviction. For instance, there can be no doubt in the present case that this schoolmaster had treated many of the boys with barbarity, and inflicted on them punishment which no circumstances could justify. But then an ingenious advocate in a court might appeal to a jury and dilate on the wholesome severity which is the privilege of a pedagogue, and he might so confound the witnesses and so mystify facts as to obtain the verdict of the jury in fa-favour of his client on that point. Then, again, in the more heinous part of the case, it might be shown where you depend on evidence, and that evidence given by young people, and uneducated people, and people unused to all the pomp and circumstance of public courts, that if there was not consent there was no resistance, and that no resistance involved consent, and though it might appear a very bad case it would be very doubtful whether it could be proved to the satisfaction of a jury; and on that ground Mr. Cane might have considered it best to have nothing to do with criminal justice, but to take the course he did. But then, how does the Central Board—for I do not wish to fix personal responsibility on Mr. Cane—justify their conduct in acting contrary to the wishes of the Board of Guardians by recommending the resignation of the schoolmaster and his wife? I must call attention to the peculiar consequences of the resignation of office under these circum- stances. By the Poor Law the power of the Board of Guardians is so limited that they have not even the power of dismissing their subordinate officers. The Board of Guardians could not dismiss a schoolmaster. The House must also remember this, that there is a provision in the Poor Law Act to the effect that any person once in the employ of the Poor Law Board, and who has been dismissed, should never, under any circumstances, be employed by the Poor Law authorities again. The Board of Guardians were most anxious that the resignation of this man should not be accepted, because the moment he resigned his office there was not the slightest reason whatever that he should not be a candidate for office in another union, as soon as the circumstances that had happened had been forgotten, or in a place where they were not known. The central authority, by not only recommending, but by sanctioning and proposing the resignation of this person, absolutely screened him from the only penalties he would incur if he were not prosecuted for his heinous conduct, and sent him forth to the world without the slightest stain on his character. The Board met for the third time on the 27th February, with two important duties to discharge. In the interval a new charge had been made against the schoolmaster. A young woman, Ann Allen, who was about to leave the union house at Sanderton, when making her farewell visit to the master and matron communicated to them that she was in the family way, and that the father of her impending child was the schoolmaster—that she had been a pauper pupil some years of her life in that school; that he had seduced her there; that he had retained his connection with her, and that she had often visited him at the school. This was a case aggravating the offence of the man. The evidence was taken down, and it was determined to send it to the Central Board, from whom the guardians had not yet received a single letter. They had then to receive a report from their committee, and that committee informed the Board that the master and matron had resigned; that their resignation had been accepted by the central authority, that their places were vacant, and that they were no longer under the authority of the Board of Guardians. The Board of Guardians refused to confirm the report of the committee, who had no right whatever to accept any resignation, and they addressed to the Central Board a statement of the case of Ann Allen, accompanied by a remonstrance, pointing out the effect of the acceptance of the schoolmaster's resignation, and an earnest appeal for an answer to their various letters, and some instructions as to the course which they were to pursue in this difficult business. At last they received an answer dated "Poor Law Board, Whitehall, March 4"— I am directed by the Poor Law Board to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ult., forwarding a copy of a resolution passed by the guardians of the Wycombe Union, at a meeting held on that day in reference to the resignation of Mr. and Mrs. Stallwood, the master and matron of the school, together with a copy of the evidence taken by the guardians in reference to his conduct towards Ann Allen, formerly an inmate of the school. The Board have also received your previous letters of the 14th and 20th. This was how the business of the Board was transacted— In reference to the charges against Mr. Stallwood, I am directed to state that the Board have received a report from the Inspector, Mr. Cane, from which it appears that the master resigned his office unconditionally, and that Mrs. Stallwood resigned at the same time. Under these circumstances the Board direct me to point out that the acceptance of Mr. Stallwood's resignation by the guardians is not necessary to give effect to that resignation and as Mr. Stallwood is no longer responsible as an officer either to the guardians or this board, and that the Board can take no steps with regard to his alleged misconduct. What other interpretation could a body of well-meaning, honest men, used to the duties of their rural office, give to this letter, but that after all that had occurred they were now apprised by the central authority that there were no means whatever of obtaining redress for the great injuries which the society to which they belonged had sustained from this individual. I need hardly call upon the House to frame in their minds some opinion as to what must be the effect in a large rural district, containing upwards of 35,000 inhabitants, among every portion of which this story, in the course of a month, must circulate. The House can easily conceive what effect would be produced in such a society as I have described, by whom this affair had been discussed at fairs, markets, and all other public resorts. The feeling was naturally one of great indignation; they felt that they had no redress for the outrages they had suffiered. I do not believe that so much feeling had for a considerable period been excited in that part of the world. Any one would have supposed that the business had terminated with the letter from which I have just read an extract; but the matter was mentioned in this House, and the Board of Guardians expressed by resolution their dissatisfaction with the communication which they had received from the central authorities, stating that they looked upon it as "altogether unsatisfactory," and informing the Poor Law Board that they should consult their representatives and take their advice as to the course they ought to pursue. And, certainly, I do not see why men should have Members of Parliament, or why we were elected to represent the interests and feelings of the community, if such things as this can take place with impunity, and not be mentioned in this House. Rather more than a week after the date of the letter to which I have already referred, the guardians received another communication from the Poor Law Board. It was addressed to the clerk of the guardians, and was dated October, but there could be no doubt that that was a mistake for March 15. It was written, by the way, as if there had never been any communication between them on the subject. Referring to the misconduct of the late master, it called the attention of the guardians to the 93rd section of the 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, which provided that if any master or any other workhouse official should in any way abuse or ill-treat or be guilty of any other misbehaviour, or otherwise misconduct himself towards or with respect to any poor person in such workhouse, he might be brought before a magistrate, and if the offence was proved might be fined £20. Then, attention was called to an Act of the Queen, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 59, which provided that it should be lawful for the Board of Guardians to pay out of the funds in their hands for the apprehension and prosecution of any officer charged with the maltreatment or abuse of any poor person. And the guardians were told that it was for them to decide whether they could produce sufficient evidence to secure a conviction, and that if they found it necessary they might offer a reward for the apprehension of the accused. The letter was signed "R. B. Cane, Poor Law Inspector." Those are the facts of the case; and the general feeling which they have produced is such as I have described; but the House will not be surprised to hear that a portion of the general discontent and indignation has naturally, though undeservedly, been visited upon the guardians of Wycombe Union—a fact which has made them still more anxious that the matter should be brought before this House. What they complain of is, first of all, that their letters of the 14th and 21st of February, when they first sent up the evidence, were never noticed at all; secondly, they complain that the Poor Law Inspector, without conferring with the clerk or any of the guardians, went down to the school and forced the resignation—no not "forced," for the man, I dare say, was happy enough to give it—occasioned the resignation of Stallwood and his wife. Thirdly, that they informed the guardians in the letter of the 4th of March that no proceedings could be taken in the matter, and then by the letter of the 15th informed them that they might prosecute, and, if necessary, offer a reward for his apprehension, which certainly was very necessary, because the House will be prepared to hear that long ago Stallwood had absconded. He had watched the course of events no doubt with great interest, and for a long time thought he should be able to baffle both guardians and Commissioners. But after the case of Ann Allen came out he thought that, on the whole, it would be the wisest thing to abscond. If no further proceedings are taken he may some years hence, when the evidence is almost forgotten and the witnesses scattered, return to the neighbourhood without a stain on his character. He could say that, when a public officer, he had tendered his resignation to the authorities, who courteously accepted it; and he might become again a relieving officer or perhaps a schoolmaster. Fourthly, they complain of the conduct of the Poor Law Board, because through their mysterious silence and neglect in not giving them the slightest information or advice till a month had elapsed, and the chief offender had disappeared, the Board of Guardians has itself been accused, certainly undeservedly, of neglecting the interests of the pauper children. This is the case which from a sense of duty I have brought before the House. I shall listen with interest to any explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, for it does appear to me to be a case which requires ample explanation at the least from Her Majesty's Government, and I shall be glad if my conclusions should prove to be unfounded. I have omitted to mention that on the 27th, when the Board of Guardians sent up the statement of Ann Allen, and protested against the conduct of the Poor Law Inspector in arranging the resignation of the schoolmaster, they also sent a letter, which was addressed to them by a pauper then in the house, and which shows how keen was the feeling among the humbler classes on the subject. This letter, written after consultation with the other paupers, the writer being the best penman among them, was as follows:— Gentlemen of this country; we poor paupers ask for justice on the part of our poor children. We should like to know why the master's conduct is not exposed to all the world. If we were to put a rope around a child's neck, or draw a knife across its throat, or if our little females were treated in an indecent manner—if we were to do acts of such brutality, we should be tried and punished. Is there the same law in this land for one as for another? Why are our feelings to be outraged? We appeal for justice. Your humble servant, William Hoare, a pauper in the house. The wording may excite a smile, but that letter shows what is the feeling of the paupers themselves, and that feeling is shared also by the poorer inhabitants. I do not wish to bring before the House details which would be inconvenient and are not requisite, and I, therefore, only move for a copy of the letter of the Poor Law Board, signed by H. Fleming, Secretary, dated March 4, 1865.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, a Copy of a Letter from the Poor Law Board, dated the 4th day of March 186S, and signed by Henry Fleming, secretary, relative to the Wycombe Union,"—(Mr. Disraeli,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. C. P. VILLIERS

said, he had nothing to complain of in the right hon. Gentleman's manner of bringing forward this case. He had done so with his usual clearness and courtesy, and if there had been any inaccuracies in his statement either of the law or the facts this was due, no doubt, to the instructions he had received. As he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) was totally unaware of what was going to be brought before the House, he was not prepared to meet all the details into which the right hon. Gentleman had gone. He had marshalled his facts for the purpose of producing a particular effect, but the question involved seemed to be one with respect to the particular powers conferred by the Legislature on the guardians and on the Poor Law Board respectively. The Legislature had provided for the protection of the inmates of workhouses, and for the removal of any person who might maltreat them; and the powers necessary to accomplish this object had been differently distributed—some being given to the Poor Law Board, and others to the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to find fault with the course which the central authorities took in not having acted up to their powers, and seemed to think that the guardians had been badly treated, that great scandal had been produced, and that there had been some miscarriage of justice. It did not appear to him that the law required any communication from a Local Board of Guardians to the Central Board before it could inquire into the conduct of any of its officers; but a communication had been made by the guardians of this union to the Central Board concerning certain irregular proceedings that had taken place at this district workhouse school. This was the course usually followed by the guardians if they had a complaint against their officers, and the course prescribed to the Central Board was to inquire into the truth of this matter. The usual course was followed in this case—namely, the papers forwarded to the Central Board were immediately transmitted to the Inspector of the district, and he was instructed to ascertain whether the charges were well founded. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the papers were sent on the 14th; but they were received, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had been informed, on the 16th, and on that day they were transmitted to the Inspector, whom they reached on the 17th. The Inspector was at that time engaged in other business connected with his office; but, however, he lost not a moment, but proceeded as soon as possible to the spot, which he reached on the 21st, and did that which was daily done by Inspectors. He called upon the man charged to appear before him, stated the communications which had reached the Central Board, and informed him that he had been appointed to inquire into the facts of the case. The man was told that an investigation would take place, and that his course would be either to appear before the Board, examine witnesses, and make what defence he could, or state what he could in extenuation, or to admit his guilt, and immediately resign his situation. The course pursued by the Inspector was precisely that which the law prescribed, for by the 46th section 4 & 5 Will. IV., the Central Board were directed to appoint competent persons for the administration of relief, &c., to the poor, and it was further enacted that the Board was empowered, upon the complaint of the guardians, to order and direct a competent and tit person to proceed to the place at which the alleged offence was committed, to make inquiry. The Central Board was also empowered to remove any master or officer whom they should deem unfit to discharge the duties of his office. Such was the limited duty of the Central Board. They were directed to see that no unfit or incompetent person should remain in any office; and therefore when a person was charged with misbehaviour they might cither call upon him to submit to an inquiry or to resign. But with respect to the punishment of guilty persons, the law had provided that that matter should be in the power of the guardians. If anybody misbehaved in any way the Legislature had distinctly provided that the proceedings to be instituted with a view to the infliction of punishment should be in the hands of the guardians. The right hon. Gentleman had made light of that provision, but it seemed somewhat important in the consideration of this case. The 93rd section of 4 & 5 Will. IV. distinctly provided that any officer who might have in any way misconducted himself might be taken before two justices, and upon conviction fined in a sum not exceeding £20, or in default committed to prison for a term not exceeding six calendar months. If the right hon. Gentleman knew as much of guardians as persons who were brought into daily contact with them, he would know that an inducement to proceed against offenders was held out to them by a provision which laid it down that it should be lawful for any Board of Guardians to pay out of the funds in their hands all costs for the apprehension and prosecution of any person who might be charged with misbehaviour or misconduct. A distinct provision was made in 7 & 8 Vict. for costs under such circumstances. Well, then, what had happened in this matter? The Inspector having proceeded to the spot found there a Committee of the Board, of Guardians appointed to make arrangements for the superintendence of the school in consequence of the suspen- sion of the master. They communicated with the Inspector, who informed them of what had been done, and that he had been instructed at once to proceed in the matter. The Committee, who had been appointed by the whole body of the guardians, were extremely glad to accept his services, and conferred with him for some time. The Inspector then went out and communicated with the master. He returned in a short time and informed the Committee that the master had tendered the resignation of his office unconditionally and absolutely. The Committee made no objection to that course, and the Inspector left on the same day, believing that he had done what the Committee wished and all that he had been deputed to do. The man had resigned; he had been told to quit the place without delay; a new master might be appointed, and the guardians had it in their power to punish the offender if they pleased. He would read a letter which the Inspector had written to the Poor Law Board to inform them of the mode in which he had executed his task. [Mr. DISRAELI: What is the date?] He presumed it was the 21st of February—it might have been a day or so after. The right hon. Gentleman then read the Inspector's letter, which stated that he had received the master's resignation, that he had advised the Committee as to what further was required to be done, and that he was not aware that it was the practice of the Board to take any steps under such circumstances. Some time afterwards, when a question was put in the House, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) inquired as to the nature of the offences, and why the matter had been left in the state it then was. The Inspector gave an explanation which appeared plausible, if not conclusive. He said— I have had great experience in examining painful cases of this kind in which children are concerned, and I have frequently had reason to doubt their veracity. Not that their intention is to deceive me, but they are brought out of the ward of a workhouse, they know what they are expected to say, and I am aware of nothing which is more shocking than the disgusting details which are given by those children. I avoid, therefore, entering on such investigations when it is possible. But there was another reason. The nature of the charge made it a fit subject for criminal proceedings. The schoolmaster was charged with an assault upon certain children, and what was the position of the Inspector under such circumstances? The guardians supposed that the Poor Law Board would proceed almost judicially, not only in hearing the case, but in passing judgment and inflicting punishment. The Inspector, no doubt, had the power of taking evidence, and the witnesses were sworn; but the doubt was how far the Inspector was entitled to put the schoolmaster on his oath and take evidence which might be used against him at the next assizes. Most persons would say that was an improper thing to do, and it was certainly inconsistent with the general principle of law in this country. The Inspector was, therefore, obliged to use his power very carefully, and the inquiry was, in fact, rather an irregular proceeding, instituted in order that the Central Board might know whether they were called upon to act, and whether the officer ought to be called upon to resign. He wished to request the attention of the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Disraeli) to the position of the Inspector in the present case. He obtained the resignation of the officer, and he left it open to the guardians to proceed in the regular way in making out the charge which they said they had evidence to establish. There was, he thought, no ground for complaining of any tardiness on the part of the Poor Law Board in its communications with the guardians. They were fully aware of the state of the law and of their power under it, and were somewhat offended with the Inspector for unnecessarily reminding them of it. The wonder was not so much that the Central Board did not act more promptly, as that the guardians did not exercise their powers. They had not the slightest doubt that they possessed the power of proceeding. The question was still asked why they did not even now proceed criminally against this person for the offence with which he was charged. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to wish the House to believe that it was in consequence of the shortcomings of the Central Board and the course taken by the Inspector that justice was not satisfied, and he intimated that this man might some day or other again fill some situation under the Poor Law Board. That, however, would be impossible. The man had not absconded. He believed it was known where he might be found, and it was clear that the guardians might offer a reward for his apprehension and proceed against him. But with regard to his future employment, a record was kept at the Poor Law Board of the resignation or discharge of any officer. The charge against him, his resignation, and the circumstances under which it was offered, were all recorded in the books of the Board. He could not be appointed without the sanction of the Board, and they would not give that sanction without a reference to their books. He confessed he did not know precisely what the guardians had to complain of. They were of opinion, no doubt, that there might have been a communication made to them immediately; but the Board thought it would be much more satisfactory to send the papers and instructions at once to the Inspector. He went down immediately to the spot. He received the letter on the 17th of February, and he was upon the spot on the 21st of February. The right hon. Gentleman would have the House believe that between the 14th of February and the 4th of March no communication from the Poor Law Board was received by the Board of Guardians or their clerk. That could hardly be the case if the Inspector was on the spot by the 21st of February, and in communication with the Committee who carried the resignation to the rest of the Board of Guardians. He did not see that, under those circumstances, the guardians had any reason to complain of any want of consideration or punctuality. He would not pretend to say that the Inspector had taken the very best course, because it would perhaps have been better if he had left the guardians to take proceedings against the schoolmaster before a court of justice. But the Inspector was a most honourable, intelligent, and experienced man, and had acted from the very best motives. There was something like unfairness in imputing to the Inspector a desire to "hush up" the matter. This was rather an odious imputation, and implied complicity. But nothing the Inspector did evinced any intention to hush up the matter. He had no acquaintance with the schoolmaster, he had no quarrel with the guardians, and he had no possible connection with the place or with any person that should lead him to deviate from the practice pursued by himself and the other Inspectors in similar cases. It could not be said that he hushed up the matter when he forced the officer to resign, and told the guardians they might proceed against him either at the assizes or before the justices. He trusted that after this explanation the right hon. Gentleman would be of opinion that there had been no neglect on the part of the Board, nor any misconduct on the part of the Inspector in the course he had pursued in this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.