Lords Sitting of 24 February 1842

Preamble
Minutes.] Bill. 1a Witt's Estate.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Radnor, from Banff, and various other places, Lord Brougham, from Perth, Whitechapel, and other places, and the Earl of Carlisle, from Carlisle, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Brougham, from Congregations of An-

973
trim, Dromore, Downpatrick, and other places, for Legalizing Marriages by Dissenters.—By Lord Feversham, from Confectioners of York, and Dunstable, against the Importation of Confectionery from the Channel Islands. From Bathgate, for Revision of System of Taxation.—From Carlisle, complaining of Distress.—From George Fanner, for Inquiry into Deaths of two Paupers at Crediton.

EXCHEQUER - BILL - FRAUD.
Lord Wharncliffe,seeing the noble Lord the Controller of the Exchequer in his place, wished to know whether he had any objection to postpone to Thursday the motion of his relating to the late Exchequer-bill fraud, which now stood for Monday next? As his noble Friend the noble Duke could not attend in his place on Monday, it would be a convenience to have the noble Lord's motion postponed to another day.
Lord Monteaglehad already postponed this motion several times in deference to the suggestion of the noble Duke, and would again consent to another postponement from the same motive; but let it be borne in mind that these postponements did not come from him, but were made to suit the convenience of noble Lords opposite.
Lord Wharncliffeadmitted that fact, but added that the absence of the noble Duke arose from the discharge of what he considered part of his public duties elsewhere.
Motion postponed.

CORN-LAWS. PETITIONS.
Lord Kinnairdhad to present several petitions for the repeal of the Corn-laws, which had been transmitted to him from various parts of Scotland. Amongst these were thirty-four petitions from the workmen of several factories in Dundee. Some of the petitions were signed by those engaged in the linen trade in the east of Scotland, and they prayed that, along with the tax on the import of corn, might also be removed any protecting duties on their own particular trade. They wished to have trade wholly free. Some of those petitions had been agreed to before the Government plan of a change in the Corn-laws had been agreed to, but from several of the parties he had received letters, which showed the general feeling in those parts of Scotland to which they belonged to be decidedly hostile to the Government plan. One letter, from which he would read an extract, expressed the deep regret of the writer at the plan proposed by Government, and stated that a similar feeling was prevalent throughout that part of the country. The writer ex-
974
pressed his fears that the tale of woe describing the distresses of the people would be met by insult; and this was evident from what he had read of what occurred in another place. ["Order."] He was not reading a petition, but an extract of a letter which had been forwarded to him, and of which he could produce hundreds, all to the same effect.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he could produce thousands of letters all the other way.
Lord Kinnairdwent on to read the extract, which said, that unless some means were adopted to relieve the distresses of the people, they would be driven to proceedings which would not be so easily quieted, and that if they did not oppose such measures as the Corn-laws by every means in their power, they would be untrue to themselves and to their country. To show the effect of the Corn-laws on the industry of a large class of the poor fishermen in Scotland, he would read an extract from another letter which he had received from a gentleman who had taken pains to encourage the fisheries in the Shetland Isles. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had, upon the occasion of the dinner after the laying of the first stone of the Royal Exchange, taken occasion to make use of these words:—
" I must say, that it is a circumstance of pride and gratification to me to feel that we are assembled here in celebration of such an event, in the face of this distinguished company—the concentrated representative of the wealth, the honour, the honesty, and therefore the power of the commercial interests of this great empire.
" O weel may the boatie row,
And better may she speed;
O weel may the boatie row
That gains the bairns' bread.'"
In the face of that expression of feeling, the noble Earl was a member of a Government at that time about to bring forward a measure, the effect of which would be to prevent the "boatie" from earning one half bread enough for the "bairns." But he would refer to the instance to which he had alluded. His correspondent had written to inform him that he had some time ago determined to establish a fishery in one of the small islands of the Shetland district, that he had done so, and with the best result, the fishery being carried on with the highest degree of success. An offer had then been made by a Spanish merchant to take fish, to the amount

975
of 15,000 l., in exchange for which floor was to have been given, but owing to the heavy amount of duty payable on the importation of foreign corn into this country, it was found impossible to accept the offer. The fishermen were thus, the writer added, robbed of one-half of their daily bread. He did hope that some of his noble Friends near him would move for an inquiry into the distress which revailed, with the view to see how far it might be remedied.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that the noble Lord was perfectly welcome to take any advantage that he could of a supposed inconsistency in quoting the verse of the song on the occasion alluded to. And he begged to say that he had no idea when he quoted it that it had any reference whatever to the Corn-laws, otherwise he certainly should not have made use of it. As regarded another point of the noble Lord's remarks, namely, that which related to the exchange of salt fish for Spanish flour, he wished the noble Lord would inform him whether the Spanish Government had a Corn-law or not? and what duty the Spanish Government imposed upon our salt fish imported there? There was no article, he begged to say, so heavily taxed in Spain as salt fish imported there. It was quite clear, therefore, that if the Spanish Government would not accept of our salt fish but with a high duty, almost indeed amounting to a prohibition, there was not much chance of the correspondent of the noble Lord receiving Spanish flour in exchange, particularly as there was a Corn-law in Spain.
Lord Kinnairdthought there was a connexion between the Corn-laws, at all events, and those lines of the song which said,
"O weel the boatie rows,
Which gives the bairns bread."
Surely between bread and the Corn-laws there must be an affinity.
Petitions laid upon the Table.

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES (IRELAND.
Lord Broughamhad also to present several petitions from Presbyterian congregations in the counties of Antrim, Down, and Tyrone, and in several other places in Ireland, praying for some legislative enactment for legalizing the marriages of Dissenters with members of the Established Church. The whole of these petitioners expressed the greatest anxiety at the recent decision of the learned judges in Ireland against the legality of those marriages, and it was very natural
976
that such anxiety should be felt on the subject. He had seen what he believed to be a correct note of the grounds of the decision to which the judges had unfortunately come on this question, and though he feared to express any opinion which might be held adverse to the decision, yet it was no departure from that courtesy which he sincerely desired to observe towards those learned persons, he said, that those reasons had faHed to satisfy him. The feeling which he entertained on the question was not confined to himself alone. It was shared by others who had duly considered the subject. The decision, he must say, was the more to be lamented, as the question was raised in a shape which made a revision of it by any other tribunal impossible.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that the late decision of the Irish judges was directly opposed to the opinions given on the same question in 1816. On that occasion the late Sir S. Romilly referred to the case of a gentleman who was convicted of bigamy about that time, one of the marriages having been celebrated by a Presbyterian clergyman, and between a Presbyterian and a member of the Church of England. The case was then submitted for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, Sir William Garrow and Sir Samuel Shepherd, and they were decidedly of opinion that the marriage was perfectly valid. In that opinion Lord Eldon was known to have fully concurred, and the sentence of the court, of transportation, was carried into execution on the convicted party.
Lord Campbellwas desirous of again calling the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to the subject to which the petitions which had just been presented to the House referred. His noble and learned Friend was aware of the intense anxiety which was felt by a large class of persons upon the subject. He had lately received several communications relative to the painful situation of parties affected by the decision of the Irish judges. No doubt had existed for many years but that marriages contracted under the circumstances in question were perfectly valid. He would express a hope not only that the Government might at the earliest opportunity introduce a bill to remedy the evil, but that his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack would introduce the bill into that House in the first

977
instance. It appeared that the House of Commons was engaged, night after night, with subjects of great public importance, which prevented them from turning their attention to the subject; and be was of opinion that it would be found much more convenient to introduce the bill immediately into that House, and he earnestly hoped that his noble and learned Friend would adopt that course.
Lord Broughamsaid, he most strongly concurred in recommending to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to bring the measure forward in that House rather than in the House of Commons. He would beg to remind his noble and learned Friend that he had on a former occasion concurred with him in complaining that their Lordships were left in the early part of the Session for many weeks with scarcely anything to occupy their attention, and that towards its close a heap of business was thrown upon them, a great part of which was thrown over to the next Session for want of time in which to give it that due consideration to which it was entitled. In the state in which business was now before the House, their Lordships could give full attention to the measure, if his noble and learned Friend should introduce it there.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was not his intention at that moment to say a single word as to the law of this question. He would only observe that the Irish judicial bench was never filled by lawyers possessed of more legal knowledge than at the present moment. The question as to those mixed marriages had been ably argued before it, and full time had been given for its due consideration before its decision was pronounced. With respect to the question put to him by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), he would say, that a bill on the subject referred to had been prepared, and was at present before the law officers of the Crown, as it related to a very delicate subject. Whether the measure to be introduced should be brought in first in that House or in the House of Commons was a matter not yet decided; but if it should be decided to have it brought in the first instance before their Lordships, as little delay should be allowed to intervene as possible.
Petitions laid on the Table.

THE POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS.
The Bishop of Exeterrose to present the petition of which he had given notice on a former evening. It was of such length that he would not take up their Lordships' time by having it read at the Table; but he would, as he proceeded, give a correct abstract of its contents. It contained very grave charges against the Poor-law commissioners of England and Wales, and, as it did, he had taken care that before laying it on their Lordships' Table, copies of it should be placed in the hands of the parties to whose conduct it related. Those parties were now in full possession of all the facts which were charged against them, and he had the satisfaction of knowing that the case of the commissioners would be stated to their Lordships by a noble Lord high in office, whose zeal and ability would leave nothing untold which in his opinion made for their justification. To this he had no objection whatever. On the contrary, lie thought it but fair and just that the Government should protect its public officers where they acted fairly in the discharge of their public duty. He would, however say, that unless a great part of the facts alleged in the petition were fully contradicted, much of grave charge would remain, for which they would remain responsible. He would now proceed, and though he would endeavour to make his narrative as brief as the case would admit, still he feared his trespass on the time of their Lordships would not be very short. In the month of January, 1840, two paupers died in the workhouse of Crediton, in Devon, under circumstances which excited a very strong and general feeling in that town and its vicinity. Rumours went abroad as to the case, and the names of the guardians were mentioned. In consequence of those rumours, a highly respectable individual, an attorney at Crediton, felt it his duty to make some inquiries on the subject. He at first disbelieved the rumours which had reached him, but as he went on with his inquiry the proofs came so thick upon him that he could no longer doubt that the rumours were well founded. In this feeling he addressed a letter to James Wentworth Buller, Esq., the chairman of the board of guardians. In mentioning the name of this gentleman he must say, that a more respectable or honourable man did not exist. As he took a great interest in the condition of the poor, it was natural that Mr. Tanner, the attorney to whom he had alluded, should address him on such a subject, and the more particularly as he was

979
then chairman of the hoard of guardians. On the 30th of April, 1840, Mr. Tanner addressed the following letter to Mr. Buller:—
"Crediton, April 30, 1840.
"Sir—a very serious report having for some time past been in circulation, relative to the death of a late pauper of Sandford, called William Lock, who, it is alleged, perished or expired in the month of January last in a cold dark shed or outhouse belonging to the Crediton Union Workhouse, where he had been improperly, and for several days before, placed, whilst labouring under a most severe and dangerous illness, I have, in conjunction with a friend of mine, taken some pains to investigate the matter, and it grieves me to say, that I fear there is too much reason to believe that such a report is true, and that its accuracy can be substantiated by incontrovertible evidence." (It then proceeded to request an open and impartial inquiry.) "I have, &c.,
"G. TANNER.
" To James W. Buller, Esq., Chairman of the Crediton Poor-law Union.
This letter was read at the board of guardians at their next meeting, but the board took no notice of it. At least no acknowledgment was sent of its receipt, and so far from complying with the request for investigation, the guardians did not accord to the writer even the civility of an answer. In consequence of this Mr. Tanner felt it his duty to address the Poor-law commissioners in London, and, accordingly on the 6th of May, in the same year, he sent them the following letter:—
"Crediton, Devon, May 6, 1840.
"Gentlemen—I take the liberty of transmitting for your immediate and serious consideration, a letter, which I felt it my duty to address to the Crediton board of guardians at their last board day, and as no reply has been given to it, nor any steps, which I have heard of, taken in the matter, I am thus compelled, respectfully but earnestly, to beg that you will require a prompt and public investigation of the subject of it. As the public press has alluded to this deplorable case, and as the report of it, with the usual exaggerations and embellishments, no doubt, has been circulated far and wide, I do submit, that the most open inquiry should be instituted, at which, if permitted, I think I shall be prepared to substantiate, by indisputable testimony, more than the lamentable facts stated, and more than one such case. In addressing you as public functionaries, in whom the Legislature of this country has thought fit to repose such unlimited and awful powers, I am convinced I need not point out the duty which you owe that Legislature and your country, to cause every well-founded charge to be thoroughly and im-
980
partially sifted. In this instance common justice to all persons and parties, as well as humanity, imperatively demand it, and I feel assured you will not forget the maxim 'Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur.'
"I have, &c.
"G. TANNER.
"To the Poor-law Commissioners for England and Wales."
This was on the 6th of May; and on the 9th of May Mr. Tanner received a letter from the Poor-law commissioners, stating that the matter should receive their immediate attention. Mr. Tanner naturally relied upon this assurance, and three days afterwards he wrote a letter to them, to an extract from which letter he the (Bishop of Exeter) should have occasion presently to call the attention of their Lordships. But, to his utter astonishment, he had found, that though on the 12th of May he had written to say he was then ready to proceed, and that having heard from a private source that the investigation was to take place on the following Saturday, the 16th, he requested permission to call before the assistant commissioner the persons with whom the rumour had originated, and from whom he had received his information, the inquiry had closed. This course followed by Mr. Tanner was that which every fair man, eager to bring his witnesses before the tribunal appointed for the inquiry, would have adopted. On the 14th, however, he received an answer from the Poor-law commissioners, which he (the Bishop of Exeter) would now read. It was as follows:—
" That they (the commissioners) had received from Mr. Gilbert, the assistant-commissioner, depositions so conclusive, negativing the purport of his general statement, that they were of opinion they should not be justified in causing further investigation into those cases; but that if he would communicate any further specific facts, they would take into consideration the propriety of further inquiry."
Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought the extracts he had read contained specific facts—they included the death of the pauper, William Lock, in a cold dark shed or outhouse, to which he had been confined for some days While labouring under severe and dangerous illness. It was a little hard to require anything more specific as to the terms of the complaint on its very outset. Undoubtedly, the commissioners were right in calling upon Mr. Tanner to produce his witnesses to prove the grounds of his charge. It appeared, however, that on the 9th of May—the very day on which Mr.

981
Tanner received the letter from the commissioners containing the assurance that they would give the matter their immediate attentionߞit turned out that on that very day, without any communication being made to him—without any communication with the relations of the deceased pauper, Mr. Tanner stated that he had been informed, and believed, the assistant-commissioner (Mr. Gilbert) proceeded to the inquiry, and particularly requested that all which passed on that investigation should be kept a profound secret. That request seemed to have been strictly complied with, for nothing whatever transpired as to such an inquiry having taken place. Mr. Tanner having received, on the 14th of May, that communication from the commissioners, still offering, as he (the Bishop of Exeter) had already stated, to go into any other specific facts he might be prepared to adduce, wrote to them this letter:—
" Crediton, May 20, 1840.
" Gentlemen—I have been honoured with your letter of the 14th instant, and deeply regret that you are of opinion that you would not be justified in causing further investigation to be made into this case, because I fear that the depositions taken on one side only will not generally be considered as satisfactory, or tend to allay the feeling which the report had excited previously to my first addressing you. You will be pleased to bear in mind that not a single witness has been examined by your assistant-commissioner, nor a tittle of evidence heard by him, that I am aware of, in support of the statement made. How then do you know whether such statement can or cannot be substantiated? How can you decide that the depositions taken cannot be answered? I sincerely hope and trust, that even on a public investigation, the evidence will most irresistibly disprove the statement of Lock and his wife; but surely they, as well as any other witnesses, ought to be heard. I have to thank you for the opportunity which you have granted me of stating any other specific facts; but I must beg respectfully to decline interfering further in the matter, unless an open inquiry be permitted."
Such was the state of things up to the 20th of May, and this might be taken and considered to be the close of the first stage of these proceedings, or he should rather say, of these non-proceedings. The next stage was somewhat more startling. It appeared that Mr. Tanner, in consequence of the Board of Guardians not having taken any notice of his complaint, communicated with the editor, or he should say the proprietor, of a most respectable newspaper—a gentleman who was a most re-
982
spectable inhabitant of the city of Exeter —a gentleman who had filled the office of mayor, he believed, more than once, but certainly once—and who bad been distinguished among his fellow-citizens by being recommended by his political opponents in the town-council to the Secretary of State for the office of magistrate of the city of Exeter. He (the Bishop of Exeter) mentioned these facts as a proof of the respectability of Mr. Woolmer, the gentleman to whom he now alluded. Mr. Tanner communicated the information he had received to Mr. Woolmer, and Mr. Woolmer thought the case was one which ought to be inserted in his newspaper. He, however, took care with respect to the publication of the facts. He (the Bishop of Exeter) had himself read the article which put the case hypothetically. It made no gratuitous assertions, but stated the facts as resting entirely upon rumours; and it declared the readiness of the publishers to insert any contradiction which might be sent them, willing as they were to believe that the statements could not be true. For this article so put forth to the world upon the petitioner's information to this gentleman in consequence of the refusal of the guardians to inquire, legal proceedings of the most grave and serious nature were commenced. Mr. Tanner in his petition stated, that these legal proceedings had been instituted at the instigation of the assistant-commissioner, Mr. Gilbert; and this fact was important when the conduct of the Poor-law commissioners came to be considered. He would not criticise the conduct of a private individual seeking redress and reparation to his character in a court of law, but when it appeared that a public officer had been eager to bring down the vengeance of the law upon an individual who had stated calmly, but strongly, the complaint made against a public body —to him it seemed strange that a public officer, under such circumstances, should permit such vindictive proceedings; and still more was he surprised that such a course should have been pursued, when he remembered that those public officers had been intrusted by the Legislature of the country with powers almost unprecedented; and with such powers conferred upon them it was absolutely necessary for the good of the country, and especially for the interests of the poor, that their proceedings should be nicely watched. [The Earl of Radnor: who were the prosecutors?] Mr. Tanner in his petition stated he had been informed,

983
and believed, that the Board of Guardians of the Crediton Union had commenced the prosecution in question at the instigation of the assistant-commissioner. He did not mean himself to say that such was the case; he only proceeded upon the averments of the petitioner, and those averments distinctly stated the prosecution to have been got up at the instigation of the assistant-commissioner. But when the proceedings were instituted, and the case was heard in the Court of Queen's Bench, the defendant had prepared a whole body, nay, a string of affidavits, to show the truth of the facts alleged in the statement published in his newspaper. It so happened, however, that the attorney to whom had been intrusted the getting up and preparing the prosecution made some unfortunate blunder. He said "unfortunate," because if a full inquiry had taken place before the Court of Queen's Bench, a great deal of subsequent mischief would have been prevented, and their Lordships would have been spared hearing the details set forth in this petition. Unfortunately, however, there had been committed by the parties employed for the prosecution a legal mistake, upon which the counsel for the defendant declared, that though it was his client's wish that the case should be gone into on the merits, he, as his advocate, could not do otherwise than insist on the technical point which insured the dismissal of the rule. This was on the 16th of June, but in the course of the same month, Le believed a further communication took place between Mr. Tanner and the commissioners in London, and also on the part of Mr. Woolmer. On the 2nd of July Mr. Woolmer took that course which he (the Bishop of Exeter) must say afforded a striking proof of the perfect fairness of that gentleman's views, and which exhibited one of the most candid proceedings of which he had ever heard. Mr. Woolmer addressed the cornrnissioners in London in this way:—Their Lordships would remember, that the gentleman at the time was smarting under the recent infliction of the costly proceedings of the Court of Queen's Bench. However, on the 2nd of July, 1840, he wrote to the Poor-law commissioners in London as follows:—
" Gentlemen, I have had the honour to receive your letter of the 27th, and as you state your readiness to receive any further information relative to the paupers Lock and Dart, and as I am desirous of putting you in possession of the plain facts, as detailed by the different affidavits, without any comments of
984
my own, I have borrowed of my attorney one of the briefs delivered to counsel on the occasion, which I now beg to transmit for your attentive consideration. Of course it must be distinctly understood that I forward it you merely as a loan, and without prejudice to myself, partner, attorney, or indeed any other person. The original affidavits, as well as other evidence, shall be forthcoming before your assistant-commissioner, whenever you may be pleased to direct an open inquiry into the lamentable facts they disclose; and I beg most earnestly to implore you, for the sake of justice, for the sake of the parties concerned, and for the sake of the poor, to cause a fair and public investigation to be immediately made into the matter."
To this letter Mr. Woolmer received the following answer from the Poor-law Commissioners on the 7th of July:ߞ
"The Poor-law Commissioners acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd instant, together with the documents therewith transmitted, relating to the case of the paupers Lock and Dart, who died in the workhouse of the Crediton Union, and the commissioners desire to state that the subject shall receive the immediate attention of the Commissioners."
What further communication by correspondence took place he did not know; but it seemed that on the 5th of August Mr. Gilbert, the assistant-commissioner, addressed this letter to Mr. Tanner, the petitioner:—
" Sir,—I beg to acquaint you that I shall sit at the board-room of the Crediton Union workhouse on the 14th day of this month, at 9 o'clock in the forenoon, to hear evidence on the subject of the several charges preferred to the Poor-law Commissioners by Mr. Woolmer and yourself respectively against the administration of the law in the Crediton Union. Summonses have been issued for the appearance of the several persons on whose statements the charges have been made, and they will be examined as to all the essential particulars. Solicitors or counsel will be allowed to attend, either on the part of the complainants, or on the part of any person affected by the charges, to watch the proceedings on their behalf, and to suggest such questions as they may think proper, and also to speak on the subject-matter of the inquiry and on the evidence."
Now, this letter decidedly recognised the petitioner, Mr. Tanner, and his friend, Mr. Woolmer, as the complainants, and the petitioner being not only one of the complainants, but also a solicitor, determined to attend the inquiry himself—to plead his own cause, to act as his own advocate in the matter. He therefore attended on the day

985
appointed—viz., the 14th, but either on that day, or immediately before it, Mr. Gilbert, the assistant-commissioner, determined to do—what? Why, to summon Mr. Tanner, who had thus been previously made a complainant, and who was to have attended in his own person, the conduct of the case, as a witness. Mr. Tanner had been obliged to obey, and had submitted to an examination which lasted the whole of that and a great part of the following day. His examination had been of the strictest kind. He had been cross-examined in a most stringent manner, not that it was pretended or imagined that he had any knowledge of his own as to the facts complained of, but because he, forsooth! had made an affidavit on behalf of Mr. Woolmer in the Court of Queen's Bench. On these grounds he had been converted into a witness—his mouth was thus shut, and lie was not permitted to take any part in the conduct of the proceedings. This seemed to be must unaccountable. He hoped the noble Lord behind him (Lord Wharncliffe) would be able to give some explanation of the proceeding. The case demanded an answer. The affidavit which Mr. Tanner had made stated his reason for coming forward was to show that Mr. Woolmer, by introducing the article in question into his newspaper, had not been influenced by any hostHe feelings towards the guardians, but on the facts which he had investigated. Such was the case, however, that Mr. Tanner had been subjected to a most vexatious examination and cross-examination, which had occupied a day and a half, and had not been permitted to appear in person to support his complaint. He had, however, said to the assistant-commissioner, "Give me time to procure an advocate to appear for me according to the terms set forth in the letter," which he had read. The reply of the assistant-commissioner was, "Certainly;" and in accordance with that intimation he broke up his inquiry on the second day's sitting, on the distinct promise that when they met again an advocate should appear to do justice to Mr. Tanner's cause. On the 15th of August the adjournment of the investigation on these grounds took place, and on the 25th Mr. Tanner received an intimation from Mr. Gilbert, the assistant-commissioner, that the inquiry would be renewed on the 27th. This announcement necessarily astonished Mr. Tanner, and he therefore addressed a letter to Mr. Gilbert, a portion of which (all that was material) he (the Bishop of Exeter) would read:—
986
" You cannot forget that it was ten days since that the inquiry was adjourned sine die, under the uncertainty, expressed by yourself, whether the Poor-law Commissioners would or would not order its renewal; and that only one clear day is given me to provide an advocate, and prepare him for the inquiry. I beg to enclose a list of witnesses which it will be necessary should be called on my part, and in the order in which they stand on the list; and I have respectfully to request that those witnesses may be duly summoned. I cannot proceed with the inquiry satisfactorily unless those witnesses are called seriatim as their names are inserted on the list; and, as the Poor-law Commissioners have thought fit to make me a complainant, surely it is not unreasonable in me to expect that I should be allowed to call my own witnesses in my own order. This is the invariable practice of the courts of law; and if a different rule prevailed, the greatest injustice would be the consequence, and so it will be in this case."
This was on the 25th of August, and on the 27th the inquiry was resumed, and then, to the surprise, but not complaint of the petitioner, he found that Mr. Gilbert was to be assisted by Mr. Parker, another assistant Poor-law Commissioner. On that occasion Mr. Tanner had engaged as his advocate a most respectable solicitor of the city of Exeter, Mr. Furlong. When Mr. Furlong presented himself before the assistant-commissioners, Mr. Parker exclaimed, "Oh! we want no advocate here,"—notwithstanding the adjournment of the inquiry from the preceding day had been made expressly to afford Mr. Tanner an opportunity of procuring an advocate; and yet, when he had found one, on the faith of the promise made to him, he was told that there was to be no advocates admitted. This decision was not only extraordinary to Mr. Tanner, but to the assembled multitude, who expressed loudly their feelings and excited indignation on the occasion. Nor was the indignation confined to these parties. Mr. Buller, the chairman of the board of guardians for the union, and another gentleman, a magistrate, of equal respectability, Mr. Sillifant, the deputy-chairman of the board,—both these gentlemen strongly expressed their indignation and astonishment at the course pursued by the assistant-commissioners. It must not be forgotten that the complaint had been originally made against the board of guardians; but when those gentlemen saw that justice was refused to those who made the complaint against them, they took a course which did them infinite honour. They said, "We will not receive a dishonourable acquittal—we will resign our posts

987
as guardians, because justice has been insulted, and the party complaining has not been permitted to make out his case." This virtually was what these gentlemen had said by their formal act of resignation. In that step nothing could be more temperate or clear than the conduct of those gentlemen. On the 29th of August, two days after the transaction, the board of guardians held a meeting, at which certain resolutions were come to, and a letter directed to be addressed to the Poor-law Commissioners in London. At that meeting, speaking of the case of the paupers Lock and Dart, the chairman and vice-chairman stated, thatߞ
"From the mode in which the inquiry directed by the Poor-law Commissioners is being conducted, wholly at variance as it is with the mode prescribed at its commencement, as well as with the usual course pursued in the public courts, public opinion will not be satisfied, whatever may be the result; neither will the proceedings of the Board of Guardians retain that confidence and respect in the union which is essential to the support of their orders, the welfare of the poor, and their own comfort. The chairman and vice-chairman find it necessary, therefore, to decline the responsibilities of the offices which they have hitherto held in this union, and resign the office of chairman and vice-chairman respectively. Resolved unanimously, that the board approve of the reasons assigned by the chairman and the vice-chairman, and that they feel it impossible themselves to continue any longer members of the board, and resign accordingly."
A long letter from the Poor-law Commissioners, approving of the course taken by the assistant-commissioners, having been read by the clerk to the meeting, the following resolution was moved by Mr. John Sillifant, jun., seconded by Mr. French, and adopted unanimously:—
" That the board cannot concur in the reasons expressed by the Poor-law Commissioners in justification of the mode of inquiry which has been instituted into the case of Dart and Lack, and into the general management of the Creditor, Union workhouse."
After this interference on the part of the chairman and vice-chairman of the board of guardians, and the indignation of the public present loudly expressed, the assistant-commissioner said he would not sit in a public room, but retired to a private room, with the master and surgeon of the workhouse—two officers whose treatment of the paupers had been subject matter of specific complaint. They also admitted reporters for the public papers, but they would not admit either the complainants or any person
988
to act on their behalf; consequently, there was no person who knew what the nature of the complaint was, or by what evidence it was to be substantiated. In consequence the second resolution was passed, to this effect:—
"That the withdrawal of the assistant-commissioners from the public room was not rendered necessary by the conduct of the persons present, which was peaceable and orderly; that the interruption arose from the refusal of the assistant-commissioners to pursue that course of inquiry which had been laid down by the assistant-commissioner at the commencement of the proceedings, according to which it had been conducted until the adjournment, and to carry out which was the understood and declared object of the adjournment."
The third was—
" That, unwilling as the board is to make any further remarks on the present inquiry in its advanced stage,"—
That was some time after the 29th—
"yet must they express their decided conviction, that whether an inquiry be instituted solely for the information of the Poor-law Commissioners and her Majesty's Government, or for the public satisfaction, no mode can be less expedient than that of limited publicity, and the result in the present instance cannot be satisfactory."
Fourth,—
" That the board is not disposed to reverse its former resolution to resign, unless the Poor-law Commissioners shall indicate some course by which, in their future proceedings, that good understanding may be restored and maintained between the central and local boards which is so essential to the well-working of the system, and which it has been the anxious care of the Crediton Board of Guardians to preserve."
Now, an inquiry took place in a private room, conducted as he had mentioned; Mr. Parker, Mr. Gilbert, the master of the workhouse, and the surgeon, were present. They examined and cross-examined all the witnesses who were produced—it was said that they did this in an unequal manner; whether that was the case or no he could not say; but at any rate the parties against whom the complaint was made cross-examined all the witnesses. On the other hand, there was no opportunity afforded to the complainants to examine any witnesses. But this was not all. The commissioner, who was to examine the witnesses, did not know what the examination was about; he knew nothing of what a particular witness was brought to prove.

989
It was true, he was guided, with respect to a small portion, by the affidavits; but as to the rest, he took his chance as to the matter, and he (the Bishop of Exeter) had been assured that a witness was told, when he was about to relate his own story, "You are only to answer the questions put to you." Whilst he gave credit to the gentlemen for a desire to do justice, he believed them to be men of unblemished character and honour, and who did not mean to act unjustly or hastily, yet, whatever they might have meant, injustice had been practically committed. But he had not got to the full extent of the injury which had been perpetrated. A little consideration should have led these gentlemen, as men of sense and understanding, men, like Mr. Parker and Mr. Gilbert, of the legal profession, that the course they were pursuing was a most outrageous violation of decent fairness. Mr. Woolmer lent to the commissioners a paper brief, which one of his counsel had used in the Court of Queen's Bench, which had been given to see from the statement of his own case by himself on asking advice, whether or not there was sufficient ground for inquiry. This brief contained in the margin written confidential notes and instructions from Mr. Woolmer to his counsel; and yet this brief was permitted to be copied, and was placed in the hands of the party against whom the complaint was made, along with the notes and confidential instructions, and they had been used, he did not say hostHely, but they were used freely, against the complaining party, notwithstanding the protest of Mr. Tanner, and although it had been expressly stipulated that the brief was not to be used to the prejudice of Mr. Woolmer, Mr. Tanner, or anybody else. That an inquiry so conducted should have ended in the acquittal of the parties complained against, was not to be wondered at. After all this, the only class of the evidence he should advert to was the evidence of' the physician and surgeon, who examined the room, and as to its fitness, he should venture to read some of their statements. On the 6th of June, four of these gentlemen had been called upon to make affidavits. Dr. Granger, a physician at Exeter, said he called the place in which the paupers died a cell; he should not dignify it with the name of a room. He says,—
" I observed there were means provided of heating it, but they appeared very inadequate; there was a remarkably small stove outside;
990
in my opinion, these means were not sufficient to warm the room. I think the stove was too distant and too small. I should say 65 or 70 degrees should be the temperature."
Mr. Luscombe, a surgeon, said,
" I think the plate would produce an injurious kind of heat."
The place was not warmed by a fire-place, but by a plate, heated by a stove,—
" But not sufficient warmth for the room. Privies are attached to the cell, although not under the same roof. This was one of our strong objections. The locality of the room was bad; its smallness was objectionable. I think it is degrading Hanwell to mention this unwholesome place with it. The drain in the corner of the room was shocking; I do not consider the drains were perfect, as the smell was most offensive."
Mr. Tucker, also, a surgeon of Exeter, said,
" It was calculated for idiots in good health with the exception of the offensive smell; there was a most offensive smell when I first visited it (June 6): there is no such smell in the room now; the place was not fit for more than one or two idiots; it was not commonly air-tight. I thought there was too much ventilation for the winter season of the year, or an inclement season. The four holes in the wall are quite open, without shutters, having bars of iron across; I think these holes admitted too much air for that season of the year. I believe the offensive smell emanated from the privies. (There were some things here which he spared their Lordships' ears) I think the room a very improper. place for persons suffering under diarrhœa. I think it very unfit for such persons to sleep in—I mean the room in June."
Mr. Harris, also, a surgeon, considered the means insufficient for heating the room.
In the depth of winter I do not think that was a proper room for persons labouring under diarrhœa; it was placed between two sets of privies, and this, I think, a very bad situation for persons in that state to be placed in. I should not like to keep any one there."
This was the room in which two persons were kept for several days, and in which they died. On the part of the guardians, two eminent medical men had been called to speak in favour of the fitness of the room. He would give a specimen of the evidence of those gentlemen. Mr. Samuel Barnes, a surgeon, a man of eminent character and talents, said there was no offensive smell in the room—this was in September.

991
" I thought the room a very cheerless one—cheerless is the best term I could use; but if kept clean and dry, and warm, well calculated for the persons designed—for the reception of such persons, in a state of health, to be used as a sleeping apartment"
Not for such paupers to live and die in.
" not so well suited for protracted sickness, because, if sick persons, one or more, were confined in it night and day, it would, in my opinion, be close and unwholesome. The place may be large enough, but it is too low."
This was the testimony of a gentleman called to prove the fitness of the place. Dr. Miller thought it was not too small for an establishment of this kind, and the mode of heating judicious and effective. Now, however, came the pinch to Dr. Miller:—
" Should it be in winter, and the external air at thirty-three degrees, it would be very desirable that the internal air should be kept up at least to fifty degrees, and for patients such as Lock and Dart to a higher temperature."
Now, at this period, he (the Bishop of Exeter) had a statement of the temperature at this time from an institution at Exeter where a register was kept; whence it appeared that one day it was from twenty to twenty-five degrees; another day from twenty-eight to thirty-four degrees; another from twenty-nine to thirty-three degrees. This was the medical testimony, a class of evidence by itself. This protracted inquiry was brought to a close after no less than fifteen days of sitting—not consecutive days, but days of actual sitting; and when it came to a close many witnesses had not been examined. He was not surprised that the patience of the commissioners had been exhausted, but many of the witnesses who could speak to the facts had not been summoned, and it was a mere excuse to say that there was so many witnesses for the complainants that the inquiry would be endless, as more witnesses were heard for the defence than for the complaint. The inquiry closed on the 17th, and then there came a report from the commissioners, in which they gave a most entire acquittal to all the parties concerned. They said:—
" The Poor-law Commissioners having most carefully examined the evidence taken on the recent inquiry at Crediton, and the information communicated by the assistant-commissioners, are entirely satisfied that, as respects the treatment of the deceased paupers, Lock and Dart, there is not the slightest ground for complaint, direct or indirect, against the board
992
of guardians; but that, on the contrary, the arrangements made for the care and management of those patients are creditable proofs of the attention and solicitude of the guardians with respect to them; and that, as regards the master of the workhouse, he has performed the extremely difficult and anxious task of taking care of those patients with discretion and humanity." "The commissioners have to add, that they are on the eve of completing a document containing a detailed expression of their opinions on the various charges which formed the subjects of the inquiry, which they propose to transmit to the guardians, and to which the commissioners will, if the guardians deem it advisable, give the fullest publicity."
In answer to this, the board of guardians stated that they felt it to be advisable that the utmost publicity should be given to this detailed statement, and a letter from Mr. Chadwick, the secretary to the Poor-law commissioners, said that there was no objection to the publication of the detailed documents relative to the different subjects, and to giving the utmost publicity to them, which the board of guardians stated to be the best course. Now, after what be had said, what he was about to mention would appear to their Lordships more surprising. Whether there had been any vexatious proceeding on the part of Mr. Tanner or not, he (the right rev. Prelate) did not know whether there had been or not, at least there had been a voluntary offer on the part of the commissioners to give this detailed statement to the guardians, and to allow it to be printed for the satisfaction of the public. Would their Lordships believe it,—although the document was sent to the board of guardians,—notwithstanding that it was the wish of the guardians that it should be made public, when the document came, it was, at the express desire of the board of commissioners in London, returned to them; there was no publication, and not even a copy was permitted to be taken. Whilst he acquitted those gentlemen of any deliberate intention to do an act of injustice, still he thought that the power intrusted to their hands was too great to be confided to the commissioners; and that their conduct, the too sure result of placing unlimited power in the hands of any men, showed that such an extent of power ought to be withdrawn from them. If their Lordships should reject, as inconvenient, the proposal of an inquiry by a committee up stairs into all these particulars,—if they should be unwilling to select parts of the case for inquiry, still he hoped their Lordships would

993
not concur in the renewal of an act which placed such an unlimited, and, until this example, such an unprecedented extent of power in the hands of the commissioners.
Lord Wharnclifewas sure, that their Lordships would give her Majesty's Government credit for not wishing to resist any case which affected the interests of the public or the character of the Poor-law Commissioners, if they thought a case could be made against them. He was very far from saying, that there were not in this case some circumstances which ought not to have occurred, and he should not spare those persons to whom this remark applied. But before he entered upon the defence of the Poor-law Commissioners, he must say, that called upon as they were to perform a most invidious and odious duty, one which often ran counter to the feelings of humanity, there was great danger of imputing to them unjustly blame which was not borne out by the facts. In all cases of accusation against any party, one of the first subjects of inquiry, was the circumstances under which the accusation was made; the next, the conduct of the party who made the accusation; whether his own hands were clean, and there was any evidence of contrivance to support a case; whether it were made from a desire to see justice done, or from a wish to render himself notorious. The conduct of Mr. Tanner satisfied him, that one of that gentleman's objects, whatever might be the merits of the case, was to gain notoriety. In the first place, the transaction itself, be the merits what they might, occurred two years ago, and, notwithstanding there had been two inquiries into it, ending in September, 1840, this had been the first time that anything had been said of it, either in that or the other House of Parliament. If the conduct of the commissioners had been such as was represented, the House of Commons was open to the gentleman, where he might have had the subject investigated; but it so happened that, until now, when it was likely that a New Poor-law Bill would be introduced, he had not brought forward this case, in order (he did not say it was improper on his part) to show that things were done by the commissioners which ought to make their Lordships (as the rev. Prelate had said) cautious how they granted to them extensive powers. He had said, that this gentleman had slept upon this matter from September, 1840, up to the present time. But that was not
994
all. On the 2nd of May, 1840, he wrote a letter to the chairman of the board of guardians. That letter, was deliverd to the board when the chairman was not present. He (Lord Wharncliffe) was not surprised that the board, receiving such a letter directed to their chairman, postponed its consideration till the chairman was present. He agreed with the right rev. Prelate, that it would have been more courteous if the board had replied to it, merely acknowledging the receipt of the letter, and stating that the chairman's notice would be called to it. On the other hand, the letter being written on the 2nd, and although the writer knew that the chairman was not present on that day, before any other meeting of the guardians took place, he wrote another letter to the Poor-law Commissioners in London. No answer to this letter could possibly be received before the 8th, and on the 9th he published, in the Exeter newspaper, an article which became the subject of a prosecution for libel. Was this the conduct of a man anxious for a real inquiry into the case? He had waited from the 31st of January to the 8th of April; why could he not wait till the next board-day? If not, why should he, before it was possible that he could receive an answer from the commissioners, why should he have written an inflammatory article in a newspaper which subjected it to a prosecution? It was singular that neither in his statement in the newspaper, nor in his own petition, nor in his letter to the commissioners, did he state an important fact in the case—namely, what these poor men were—one an idiot, the other subject to epHeptic fits, and that both of them were insensible to the calls of nature. But he talked of the place as a mere outhouse, and as if no attention was paid to it. Why, the evidence of the medical gentlemen do not treat it so; they speak of it as the "idiot ward," and as proper for such persons, and not as it was represented in the newspaper. He must say, that, under the circumstances, supposing a statement of this had been transmitted to the commissioners, and they sent down an assistant-commissioner (as they did forthwith), and he found there was no truth in the statement, he could not understand how it could be said, that there had not been immediate inquiry. What took place afterwards? The guardians were not satisfied with the examination, and determined to prosecute the editor of the newspaper for a libel, and

995
they moved for a rule for a criminal information in the Court of Queen's Bench. The editor showed cause, and employed Mr. Tanner as his attorney, and the first thing done by his counsel (who must have consulted Mr. Tanner) was to take a technical objection, which upset the whole proceeding. If he wanted an inquiry, why should he have done that? He might have had a fair inquiry, and before a jury. But, no; that would not suit Mr. Tanner. After that, Mr. Woolmer conveyed to the commissioners his brief, and with the brief the affidavits which Mr. Tanner had prepared for showing cause against the rule. The moment the commissioners saw the brief and affidavits, they felt that further inquiry was necessary, and they sent down assistant-commissioners to make the inquiry. A great deal had been said about this inquiry, and it had been said, that this could not be an impartial inquiry; but it was never meant to be an impartial inquiry. The Act of Parliament gave power to the commissioners to swear witnesses; but that was only, he apprehended, to satisfy them whether a criminal offence had really been committed; and if so, under the sanction of the Government, it would be the duty of the commissioners to prosecute. The inquiry of the commissioners was in order to get information, not to convict of crime. It had been said, and it was perfectly true, that it would be better if such inquiry could be conducted in the way of a trial before a jury, and he hoped that in the bill which would come before their Lordships, some means might be devised of giving to the commissioners the means of substantial inquiry. But the right rev. Prelate had complained of the conduct of Mr. Gilbert, in calling upon Mr. Tanner to give evidence merely on the ground of his having made the affidavit. Now, if Mr. Tanner had thought fit to go Out of his way to make an affidavit, it was proper that he should be called upon to give evidence before the court, and be cross-examined on the points. If the commissioners had thought it right to do this, and if Mr. Tanner had said, "I wish to conduct the case, but you shut my mouth by making me give evidence," he thought they did not exercise a wise discretion in not allowing him to do so. But this was a mere preliminary examination. Now as to Mr. Parker; he had instructions, by which it was intended to admit evidence on both sides. First of all what happened? They met, and when they met (their Lord-
996
ships would find) there were two statements of what took place, and very different statements they were. Mr. Tanner stated, that his advocate, Mr. Furlong, was prevented from making his speech. The commissioners said, that Mr. Furlong abused the Poor-law Commissioners, and excited the people, and that when they called the first witness he applied very strong terms, both to the Poor-law Commissioners and the assistant-commissioners and pronounced the whole to be a farce. Now he, (Lord Wharncliffe) well knew, from experience, that persons placed on a bench of justice had great need to keep their temper, and learn patience, otherwise they got themselves into most undignified positions. He confessed, he believed, that these commissioners did not sufficiently preserve their patience and temper; and under the influence of their feelings they said, "We will not sit in public any longer, but will retire to another room." He must say, however, that Mr. Tanner and Mr. Furlong had no right to call the examination a farce; in fact, they began by calling it a farce. They ought to have waited to see its real character. Then they demanded a public examination, although they had refused to go into a public examination before the Queen's Bench, and had run off upon a technical objection. Now, it was very easy to irritate by means of demands of this kind. Perhaps their object was to irritate. However, the commissioners refused to conduct the examination in public, and went into a private room. The board of guardians like very honest men, wishing the whole of their conduct laid before the world, were anxious that the investigation should be taken in public; finding this refused, they resigned. Now, he was free to say that, according to his opinion, and contrary to the opinion of the assistant-commissioners, this very expression of opinion on the part of a respectable body should have prevailed with them to revise their decision; that they should have returned into the public room, and let Mr. Tanner and Mr. Furlong attack them and abuse them, and call the whole proceedings a farce, as much as they liked. The right rev. Prelate had stated a part only of the evidence —in this using his own discretion—the evidence, namely, of the medical officers; and he must observe, that the evidence of the medical persons showed that the statements in the newspapers, and the original statement in the Exeter paper, were not

997
the truth. In them it was stated, that the room was an outhouse, that it was cold, and that the air was impure, and that the two paupers died of neglect. Now, it was clear that this was not the truth. The room was not an outhouse; it was no such thing; it was a room prepared for lunatic patients, nearly in the condition of these persons. The statements to which he referred admitted, however, that there had been a scheme for warming the place, and it was quite clear, by the evidence and by the test of experience, that the room was sufficiently warm, and that the mode of warming it was an exceedingly good one. Then the newspaper accounts talked of the impurity of the place. Now, he thought that it was not very wonderful that when the friends of these parties went in to see them, lying in the state they were in, the air should be impure. They were in that condition that the air must of necessity have been impure, and he had no doubt that at that time the air was impure; but, subsequently, when these persons were not in the place, the air of the place was not impure. That appeared on the evidence. Now with respect to the ceiling and the cold, and the assertion that there were too many apertures and that it was too cold, he could only say, that all this was not the fact, but that the place was just such a place as is used for persons in that state in which those persons were, and that considerable pains had been taken to make it so. There were other exaggerations in the statement. It was said, that these persons were locked in, and that the place was a detached outhouse; but the fact was not so, there was no locking in; and, moreover, the room was connected with the rest of the building by a passage and outer room. Then there was also a story about an offensive smell from the privy. Now, he would say at once that on the evidence with respect to the situation of the one place and the other he could not believe it. It was not credible that the impurity of the air could have arisen from them. But passing from this, he must observe, that in glancing over that part of the petition of Mr. Tanner in which he spoke of the prosecution in the Queen's Bench, it struck him, as very curious that that Gentleman insinuated that the other side had made a technical fault on purpose, in order that it might be taken up by him. What, then, did their Lordships think that persons would go to the trouble and expense of bringing up witnesses and pre-
998
paring evidence, and then make technical faults, in order that all this expense might be rendered of no avail? The circumstance did, he confessed he felt, cast upon Mr. Tanner's petition something of a nature to take away credit from his statements. The right rev. Prelate had quoted a passage from a letter of the commissioners addressed to the guardians to the effect that they would publish the evidence. Now, since the right rev. Prelate spoke, he (Lord Wharncliffe) had had the advantage of learning, by inquiry, that the commissioners wished to publish the evidence, and sent down to the guardians to say so, but the guardians refused to consent to make it public for reasons best known to themselves, and would not be at the expense of it. But there was another allegation of a circumstance which, if it had occurred, would he admitted, have furnished a most pregnant and irresistible proof of the partiality of the commissioners. The petitioners stated, that the witnesses for the defence and for the charge, had been paid for their expenses in different ratios. Now, he had before him a list of the payments made to all witnesses according to their respective grades and occupations, by which it appeared that there was one rate allowed for lawyers and another for labourers, and so on; that labourers had 2s. a day as compensation for their loss of time, and women had ls. 8d. a day. Such was the scale of compensation uniformly observed, and this statement, therefore, was wholly false. Now, he said that this tainted the petition and destroyed its credit, and that although there were parts of the proceedings in which he certainly did not concur in the judgment of the commissioners, he thought that the case had been got up by Mr. Tanner from motives which he (Lord Wharncliffe) did not wish to particularise; and that with respect to the commissioners although they had made what he considered to be mistakes, yet that they had not shown any disposition to screen any one in any part of the case.
Lord Campbellcould assure the right rev. Prelate that Mr. Tanner had enjoyed the most ample opportunity for having the whole facts of this case gone into in public in the Court of Queen's Bench. The petion stated, that the defendant "intentionally or unintentionally" made a flaw in the proceedings. Now, he could assure the right rev. Prelate and the House, that the case was not so. The rule was granted on

999
reading the affidavits and the newspaper which was annexed to them. In copying the officer omitted the words "on reading the affidavits and newspaper" owing to a blot, or something of that sort, and on the objection being taken, as it appeared to the court that the rule without these words was defective, such rules being always drawn up with them inserted, they felt bound to discharge the rule. Now, the objection, let it be remembered, was taken voluntarily on the part of Mr. Tanner; he (Lord Campbell) knew not whether Mr. Tanner was in court at the time or not; but the objection could not have been taken without his consent and sanction. It was taken, and the court was bound to act upon it. It was, therefore, most improper for Mr. Tanner now to come forward, and to say that this technical flaw bad been made on purpose. Had the case come on, the court would have heard the affidavits on both sides, and on the whole they would have given the case a much more satisfactory investigation than could be had for it elsewhere.
The Bishop of Exeterwould frankly say, that he was a little surprised that the noble Lord, whose wish it must have been, and whose duty it was, as he said to defend the commissioners, had deserted this case, and that he principally dwelt on a point which he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought of very little importance—the demerits namely, of Mr. Tanner. Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) said nothing about the merits or demerits of Mr. Tanner; be they demerits or merits, they did not weigh with him. The Poor-law commissioners had departed from their duty—grossly departed—and shown themselves thereby to be unfit to be intrusted with the enormous power with which it had pleased Parliament to invest them. The noble Lord said, that the deaths of these parties took place two years ago; and he asked, how it was they had never heard of the case before. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would tell their Lordships. In the year 1840 no proceedings could be taken before either Houses of Parliament, because the investigation before the commissioners was not brought to a close within that year. That was the case in 1840. Then with respect to 1841. He could answer for Mr. Tanner that he was most anxious that this case should be brought before Parliament about the time that they were called upon to give the commissioners a prolongation of their power for another period of five years, and
1000
he had no hesitation in saying that he had advised Mr. Tanner to put off presenting his petition until the time when Parliament would have to consider whether this much-abused (as Mr. Tanner believed) power should be continued. As to the Queen's Bench, he (the Bishop of Exeter) cared not whether Mr. Tanner might have had his rule or not, and he cared not what were his motives, or whether they were or were not as base and insiduous as the noble Lord supposed; but he believed Mr. Tanner to be a man of honour, who was incapable of having any such motives as had been so plentifully attributed to him. But to what object were inquiries under these commissioners ostensibly directed?— what was it intended they were to do? Why, to find out whether there was a case for animadversion or other interference on the part of commissioners above, who ought to interfere in all cases in order to prevent any violation of the law. But what did the commissioners do? Did they think it enough to inquire? No, they gave a judicial character entirely to the proceedings. They stated that, with respect to the death of Lock and Dart, there was not the slightest imputation on the board of guardians, and that as for the master of the workhouse, he had discharged the arduous duty of taking due care and attention of these persons with credit to himself. Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) asked what decision could partake more of a judicial character; or how could there be a more formal judgment? But did the matter end here? No. The commissioners gave authority for the publication of the correspondence, in order, apparently, to irritate the public mind still more. He said, therefore, that the commissioners, whatever Parliament might have intended, had, in this case, assumed judicial power, and they were bound, therefore, to exercise it with all the calmness and impartiality that properly belonged to judicial power. He had heard part of the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe), he must confess, with pain. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had last year humanely declared that the commissioners ought to stand between the poor and the guardians, in order to see justice done them, considering at the same time, how the guardians were brought into contact with them. If that was the case, then the commissioners were in the right to judge and to pronounce judgment; but then they were bound to proceed in a just

1001
and judicial manner. He would not then go into the question of the treatment of the paupers, or the character of the House, or other particulars, although he might he allowed to say, that part of the noble Lord's citation of evidence, which went to show that everything about the room in which these persons were confined was in a proper state, had been contradicted; indeed, it was chiefly owing to these contradictions, which had been made so confidently, that he had not quoted any part of the evidence but the medical evidence. When the noble Lord said that no experiment had been made to ascertain the state of the atmosphere in the room, he had not made a correct statement. There had been an experiment made, and that by Mr. Tucker, who said,
"I am now trying an experiment on it,"
That was the stove in this room,
" I introduced a thermometer into the room about one o'clock in the day; which then stood at sixty-six degrees Fahrenheit; and at four o'clock it was raised to seventy-four degrees Fahrenheit."
[" Lord Wharneliffe, hear."] The. noble Lord cried "hear," but he (the Bishop of Exeter) begged the noble Lord to hear him to the end. Mr. Tucker went on to say that,
" During the interval between one and four o'clock, the stove had been made red hot; however, the alteration of the atmosphere was not in fact attributable to this, as at the Exeter Institution, where there was no fire, the thermometer, at the same time stood at seventy-eight degrees."
That was only seven miles from Crediton; he thought the noble Lord was presuming too much when he attributed the increased heat of the atmosphere from sixty-six to seventy-four degrees to the operation of this stove. But it was positively sworn to, in the course of the evidence, that no fire was in the stove during the day when these poor wretches died. That evidence stood, if not uncontradicted yet unshaken. Every charge of disingenuousness against Mr. Tanner, sank into nothing before the monstrous disingenuousness of the board of guardians at Crediton, in concealing from the public the opinion of the Poor-law commissioners on the various charges against them. He felt himself bound to defend Mr. Tanner in bringing this case before their Lordships; but if their Lordships were of opinion that Mr. Tanner had misconducted himself, that imputation rested on him. The more in-
1002
genuity the noble Lord had shown in defending the Poor-law commissioners, the more plainly he (the Bishop of Exeter) was convinced that no real answer had been given or could be given to the complaint made in the petition.
Petition to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.