Lords Sitting of 25 March 1844

Preamble
MINUTES.BILLS. Private.—1a. Beccles Navigation; Severn Navigation; Edinburgh Market.
2a. Rochdale Gas.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Kenyon, from Presbyterian Congregation, Edward-street, against Dissenters' Chapels Bill.—By Lord Kenyon, from 4 and by the Bishop of Bangor from 9 places, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By the Earl of Besborough, from Derby, against Poor Laws Amendment Act.—From Chillingham, and 4 places in favour of Protection to the Agricultural Interest.—By Lord Campbell, from Dumfermline, for better Remuneration of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—From Lleyn, Sgainst any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By the Marquess of Clanricarde, from Prince Edward's Island, for Restoration of the Irish Parliament.—By Lord Brougham, from Shott's Iron Works, against Mines and Collieries Act.—By Marquess of Normanby, from Relatives of John Mitchell, complaining of his Enlistment—From Sheffield, complaining of Imprisonment of Mr. Robinson and others.

LIMITATIONS ON THE HOURS OF LABOUR.
Lord Broughamrose to present a Petition from the Coal and Ironstone Miners of Lanarkshire, in which they complained of the distress which they endured in consequence of the course which the Legislature had, two years ago, deemed it proper to take for the regulation of their labour, (the Mines and Collieries Act) by which many females were deprived of the means of earning their subsistence, at an age when it was impossible for them to undertake any other species of employment. The Petitioners therefore besought their Lordships to allow those females, under whatsoever restraint or regulation their Lordships might deem fitting for their protection, to resume the only employment by which they could earn a livelihood; and, if not too late, to save them from the consequences of that cheap humanity—of that vicarious generosity—of that false philanthropy which at present seemed to have obtained possession of the Legislature. He could not present that Petition without taking the opportunity of expressing the sentiments he entertained, respecting that easy virtue which seemed to obtain among a large portion of the Legislature. It was a one-sided humanity, as well as a false humanity, in as much as it professed to maintain the rights, to support the interests, and to relieve the sufferings of those individuals who

1465
were its chief object, while it inflicted, at the same time, the deepest wounds, through hypocritical and short-sighted policy, on the very parties whose interests it professed to have at heart. He had been for a very long time a fellow-labourer with others in many good works for bettering the condition of the working classes. He had constantly, throughout his political life, been their advocate and supporter, when oppressed, according to his feeble means—would that his means had been ample in proportion to his good wishes and anxious desires! He had attempted to improve their minds as well as to extend their comforts. Surely, then, he, who had always exerted himself to promote the good of the people—he, who never in his life had given a vote, or written a line, or said a word, that tended to their oppression or neglect—but who had endeavoured, through good report and evil report, to do whatsoever he could to serve their best interests, temporary or permanent—he, who had studied to keep up the rate of their wages, and to keep down the price of their food—he, surely, had some right to be heard, when the question related to the comforts, the subsistence, to the labour and to the hardships which were the lot of the working classes. When it was said that many were engaged in unhealthy occupations—that many were worked too hardly—that frequently they laboured too heavily, and were too lightly fed; while all this must be admitted, still, he feared that those privations, those sufferings were the inevitable lot of humanity, and ever attendant upon man in an advanced state of civilized society. But he would not be perverse enough to call them oppressions—he would not be rash enough—he would not be impious enough to call them oppressions on the part of man, until he had heard from some learned doctor how much of these evils could be removed by human means, and human laws; and how much of them were the inevitable consequence, the unavoidable result, of the mysterious decrees, the inscrutable dispensations of an All-wise and All-mighty Providence. Therefore, he said, "Show me any means, within the scope of human laws, to remove those evils—show me any better course of Legislation to do away with those sufferings—show me any better rule of conduct by which our governors may be able to avoid those mischiefs—and then, if those means be not resorted to, we may use the word 'oppression.'" But, until that was de-
1466
monstrated to him—until it was proved that the means of removing these sufferings were within their reach, and were neglected—he would not admit, that the evils complained of were the mere result of oppression, though he allowed that they were heavy afflictions and deplorable calamities. But certainly he would never be a party to anything which, under the semblance of humanity, was calculated to inflict greater evils on the labouring population of this country than even those which they now complained of. And now, he would ask, was all their sympathy to be confined to the spinners of cotton and carders of wool? Was no suffering to be found amongst other classes of society? Could any half-dozen of occupations be named in which workmen and workwomen were employed, with respect to which no right to claim compassion could be found, and if compassion, according to the new and pernicious doctrine of the day, a call for legislation? Not a few of the many occupations in which the people were employed called as much, on various points, for legislative interference, as did the number of hours during which children ought to be employed in cotton factories. Here he begged leave to state the opinion of a great authority on this subject. Coming from so grave a quarter—coming from a man who was so thoroughly conversant with the question—coming from one whose whole public life was devoted, as far as in him lay, to the benefit of the people—coming from an individual who, to the last hour of his life, laboured for their good, and who now for an instant took the part of the upper classes against them—he meant the late Sir Samuel Romilly—that opinion ought to be received with respect by all parties. What was that eminent person's answer to him when he demanded his assistance, on a similar occasion, many years ago? He requested Sir S. Romilly to afford his support to a Bill which was then pending in the other House of Parliament, to which he (Lord Brougham) was friendly. The object of that Bill was not the restricting the hours during which children should be employed, but was meant for restraining the ages under which children should not be suffered to work in factories; and what was the answer of that great and good man? "I," said he, "will do no such thing as support such a Bill. Can you stop your legislation there? Have you no recollection of other trades? Do you forget the glass-blowers—the coal-heavers

1467
—the steel file-makers, who are inhaling the seeds of pulmonary disease 'from early morn till dewy eve'—the painters, who breathe an atmosphere poisoned by the fumes of white lead—the brass-founders, who handle and manufacture brass in all its forms, and who are in consequence paralyzed by it?" To this he (Lord Brougham) replied, "Do not urge all this—do not prevent me doing what I propose to do, by shewing me other evils which I cannot remedy; and in the case of children who are not their own masters, surely the Legislature may fairly interpose its protection where that protection is shown to be required." Sir S. Romilly, however, replied, "Beware how you proceed in this matter, reflect that Providence has so ordered it—and doubt whether you can interfere satisfactorily. Above all things (said he, and this particularly-referred to the employment of children) above all things, beware that you do not introduce something artificial in the place of those parental affections which Providence has, most wisely and beneficially, implanted in the human breast. Beware, lest, in taking this course of legislation, you proceed to stifle, to drown, to extingush those natural affections, which are the real and legitimate support and protection of children." Some might be disposed to go farther, and others less far in this sentiment than Sir S. Romilly; but he was sure that all their Lordships must admit, that this observation, in both its branches, was one which well deserved attention, and should be received as a warning how they interfered with the workings of nature, and the dispensations of Providence. Nothing is so dangerous as finding an artificial substitute for the natural instincts and affections. The substitute once found, nature will cease to work, and you will soon be aware how impotent an agent you have in place of an all-powerful one. All must admit, all must deplore the wants and sufferings which too many of our working classes endured; but to alter this state of things was an achievement beyond all human power. These things are all the natural consequences of the laws by which society was governed, the natural consequence of that divine ordinance by which man, ever since his primœval curse, became doomed to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow. If any one wished to ascertain whether these miseries were confined to manufactures, let him go into the country—let him view the agricultural districts. He would there see men, inured only to agri-
1468
cultural labour, growing prematurely old at forty, and decrepit at fifty; while in the factories they would find the man of fifty or sixty in a far different condition, in possession of his limbs, and comparatively active. They would then perhaps change their opinions with respect to enforcing restrictions on manufacturing labour. Let them read the most lively description that ever was given of the wretchedness attending an agricultural life and compare it with the manufacturer's lot, and he feared the two things would present a very different aspect. The poet of great eminence, to whom he referred, and who lived in an agricultural district, had described, with all the accuracy of a Dutch painter, what he knew to be the sufferings of an agricultural life; if he had lived in a manufacturing town, he would have had another field to work in, and he would have described factory life as closely as he had done that of the village, and he thought he would have drawn a less highly coloured picture. Now, how far was this course of legislation to be carried? Were they to call on the Legislature to provide so that dropsy should not be the lot of one man in consequence of his exposure to atmospherical changes, or that other complaints arising from their employments should not afflict other men? Or, to come nearer home, would any noble Lord or hon. Member of the other House consent to a law which would prohibit his coachman from driving him or his wife to a party and then waiting for him between the hours of eleven at night and five in the morning, to the inevitable injury of the servant's constitution? Would they consent to repress horse-racing which was carried on for the sake of breeding horses and gambling—he meant no offence by this expression, but he believed the fact was generally admitted—by the introduction of a measure to prevent an infant from being taken at seven years of age and half starved, and whole stunted, that he might be reduced to the condition of a dwarf at twenty, to meet the requirements of the handicap? Was that, he would ask, the course of legislation they were to proceed in? Such, however, was the career which was opened to them by those who exclaimed so much on the subject of factories, and were, as is very customary with all men, extremely prodigal of their own advice and of other people's money. But then, it was said, that the whole system as regarded women was contrary to nature, that they should not be

1469
suffered to toil. He believed, in one occupation, it was very unnatural that they should labour; he knew that it was impossible for them to pay proper attention to the nursery, and suckling their own children if they were hired to suckle other people's. And those who read Tansillo's poem might expatiate on the subject. But he would ask how many wives, and sisters, and daughters of their Lordships, and of Members of the other House of Parliament, voluntarily exempted themselves from following what, in this respect, was called the first law of nature? They excused themselves from undertaking that duty because their various avocations interfered with it; not necessary avocations, but mere amusements and pleasures. But they were told that the children of women employed in factories were swept down in scores in consequence of their not being able to attend to them. Now, he conceived that the petition which he now presented to their Lordships bore out a very different view of the case, and in fact proved de presenti and de prœterito all that he had said speaking de futuro two years ago, when the Bill to which he had alluded was before their Lordships' House. He could now clearly state, and predict to their Lordships, what the question would be; it was this; whether ten hours' work was to be paid for by twelve hours' wages? If such a principle were adopted, away at once would go the profits of the manufacturers. Those two hours were all important to him. He could not contend with foreigners if he were obliged to give the same wages for a less amount of labour. And let it be recollected, that in France, in Germany, in Switzerland, nay more, in America, where the raw material existed, as well as the hands to work it, no such restrictions were known. It would be impossible for the manufacturer to proceed, without lowering his wages. But some thought that Parliament might interfere—that nothing more was wanting than the wisdom and humanity of the Legislature to reduce the hours of labour, and at the same time, to prevent wages from being lowered in the same ratio as the time of employment was contracted! O lepidum caput! if, indeed, any word referring to the head could be applied at all to such reasoners. Was it possible that it could be soberly believed by persons suffered to go about at large, that a man could be forced by Act of Parliament to pay wages out of his own pocket merely for the
1470
purpose of keeping other people employed? And if he did not—if he dismissed his hands—was the sight of an idle man starving, more pleasing to humane minds than that of a man at once well worked and well fed. It was argued, that the proposed alteration would be greatly conducive to health. The ability to eat heartily was an acknowledged concomitant of health; but with decreased wages, how was the operative to satisfy nature? Would his situation be at all improved? He firmly believed that those who now maintained the principle of reduced labour would eventually discover their error, and find that the best friends of the poor were those who did not restrict nor interfere with their industry. He was as certain as that the sun would rise to-morrow, that many months would not pass over their heads before men would be awakened to a sense of the follies they were now committing, begin to reflect in good earnest, and find that he was the best friend of the poor who did what he could to help them and did nothing to injure them in pursuit of a vague fantastic theory which his own imagination might have conjured up, or which other men's hallucinations might have inoculated him with. He hoped and trusted that meanwhile no harm would be done to the working people, for whom it was chiefly that he now spoke—to the manufacturer, whose interests were the interests of the working people, and who in fact could have no interests apart from them—and that no page would be added to our Statute Book before it was too late to reflect on the mischief and the misery which might result from it—sanctioning any such pernicious principle (if he so might call it) as that of which he had now deprecated the assertion. Depend upon it, we could not stop here. If we were to legislate for these work people, we must for all others. Women in our collieries had suffered much; and he was one who had agreed (reluctantly, and protesting against carrying it further, and predicting those consequences which had happened) to a measure for ameliorating their condition. But there was a spectre which haunted him more than it did the manufacturer; which haunted him as the friend of the labourer, and, above all, of those very children themselves—it was the mischief of Parliament interfering to prescribe how much work a man or a woman or a child should be called upon to endure. Of the two, he protested he would rather have a bill to regulate the rate of wages,

1471
and fix a minimum of wages, than a bill to fix a maximum of work. He held the one just as much against all principle as the other; but the first would not produce so much mischief; and it would be entirely nugatory—you could not fix the rate of wages: you might succeed in restricting the quantity of labour; and he solemnly protested against the tyranny of curbing the poor in the exercise of their labour, the use of all the wealth they possessed. Those who said the Legislature could compel employers to give twelve hours wages for ten hours' work did not know what they were talking of, they were utterly ignorant of everything that had any practical bearing on the question. Let them talk elsewhere than in Parliament, and of other matters than these. They were talking of subjects as utterly unknown to them, and of which they were as hopelessly ignorant, as of what was passing in another planet. Humanity—anything that deserved the name of humanity—they had not studied. There were some of the parties who had occupied themselves in this matter for whom he entertained a very sincere esteem, and who, upon other subjects, he believed were well-informed and able men; but he hoped it would be taken as no disrespect when he said, that this only made the matter so much the worse, for nothing did so much injury to a question of public concernment as very conscientious and able men taking hold of extraordinary fantastical notions; they were more dangerous when so occupied even than hypocrites. To show the extent to which the mania for this system of legislation had extended, he would just mention that two Bills had been sent to him, ready drawn up, with a request that he should bring them before Parliament—but which he refused to do—for the relief, as it was said, of two distinct classes of work-people. The one called his attention to the much greater sufferings of sempstresses in London, Westminster, and country towns, working from early in the morning to late at night; fed on an extremely miserable pittance—on bad or second-rate, cheap, indifferent, tea and bread—little or no animal food. These were extreme cases, no doubt—such was not the state of all or nearly all; he hoped in God it was not so, at least. But their wages were low from the vehement competition. Every poor girl who had no rich parents to support her, and who chose conscientiously to lead a chaste life, was a competitor for that kind
1472
of work, and the consequences were, naturally, most lamentable. They suffered exceedingly: and the diseases, of which a frightful catalogue had been presented to him with one of the bills (which he should never present, as it was not his duty to present such impossible speculations to their Lordships), the diseases, arising chiefly from their posture of work,—diseases of the digestive organs and of the lungs, were of the most fearful character. The second class, on whose behalf the other Bill had been drawn and handed to him, was the class of workers in brass and steel. But his answer had been, that if Parliament legislated for these and other such cases (for there were other cases even worse) Parliament would become a nuisance to the nation instead of its protector, by the utter disregard it showed to the necessity of man's position in this world, and to that first fact and law of our existence—which he once had occasion, for another purpose, but in favour of the working classes (for it was against the Corn Laws), to allude to—the law of labour—
"Continuò has leges æternaque fœdera certis Imposuit natura locis, quo tempore primùm Deucalion vacuum lapides jactavit in orbem:"
Yes, this was the law of our existence, that man should live by the labour of his arm and the sweat of his brow. It was not fit to repine at it—they might lament it; and they should do all they could to relieve it, nothing to aggravate it; and, therefore, he for one, was against all interference with the free application of human industry. It was no answer against his argument, to say, "Why do you not repeal the Corn Laws?" He did not wish to do the wrong thing, lest he should injure the effect of the right thing. He was against such interference, as calculated to produce nothing but misery to workmen and masters—especially to the workmen; and it was his business to do his best to prevent such grievous error, which, in others, was only a misfortune or a venial fault, but in those who governed would be a crime. Their Lordships being a body eminently Conservative, from their reluctance to enter upon wild and hazardous speculations, it was more important sound views should be maintained and kept up, and applied in practice among them.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he wished to say a very few words on the subject of the prayer of this petition. He did not at all wish to enter at present

1473
upon the subject of a Bill which he believed was at present in another House, but of which it was not certain whether it would ever reach their Lordships, or, if it did, in what shape it would come to them. He merely wished to guard their Lordships and the country against being carried away by the eloquence of his noble and learned Friend into the belief that this petition correctly stated the general feeling of the country, and particularly of those interested in the subject, as to the effect of the Act prohibiting the working of females in Mines and Collieries, a Measure which both Houses had, almost unanimously consented, to pass, and which had been brought before the Legislature in consequence of a Commission issued when he (the Marquess of Normanby) was a Minister of the Crown. The Report of that Commission, as their Lordships would doubtless recollect, contained a collection of facts so startling and appalling, as to lead to a general conviction that some legislative interference was immediately and imperiously called for for the protection of those unfortunate females.
Lord Broughamsaid, when his noble Friend talked of protecting the weaker sex from oppression, he just wished to say, that if any case were shown in which women were compelled to labour, legislation would be all very well; but women thirty or forty years old were restrained from labour in the Collieries—a time of life, he thought, when they were quite able to decide for themselves whether they wished to undertake this employment or not.
Petition laid on the Table.

SUICIDE IN A POOR LAW UNION CELL.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he did not mean to trespass long on their Lordships' attention, but he had to submit a Motion in consequence of what had been done by a Board of Guardians in Cornwall. When he moved for Papers relative to Chaplains in Workhouses, there was one Union on which he had made particular remark—that of Penzance—and upon the mode in which the Board of Guardians for that Union had proceeded as to their Chaplain. He had stated that when the Commissioners had, with respect to the appointment of a Chaplain, declared their confidence in the Board, they must have forgotten how far the Guardians had been culpable in a
1474
certain tragical case. The Board had, naturally enough, challenged him as having made a statement affecting their character; and he complained not of this as a breach of privilege; he should be ashamed to skulk behind "privilege of Parliament"—in such a case nothing would be more intolerable than the tyranny of that or the other House if any of their Members were to make attacks on absent persons, and then complain of their defending themselves. This case he would state very shortly. The subject of it was a woman whose habits had been peculiar—she having dressed herself as a man and worked as a man; but her character, as far as chastity was concerned, had been good, and there had been much of good in her character. She was compelled to become an inmate of the Penzance Workhouse, where she suffered what she thought injustice and injury, and whence she went out to service, from which, however, she was obliged to return with an order to the relieving-officer for re-admission, which order she presented, but being (as it was said) at the time under the influence of liquor, she was not admitted into the "probationary" ward, but was thrust into a cell called the "refractory" ward, which was, he had been assured, only seven feet square, and which, he had been further told by an ex officio Guardian, was immediately contiguous to the "dead-house," in which those who had died in the Workhouse were deposited until buried. The woman had strong superstitious feelings, in consequence of the contiguity of the cell to the "dead house;" she, therefore, when told she was to be taken into that cell—as being in a state of intoxication (as to which, however, there were different statements), said, "I am willing to go anywhere, but do not put me into that frightful place!" He (the Bishop of Exeter) believed he was correct in saying that the parties had no right, under such circumstances, to put her into that prison,—which, however, they endeavoured to do, and would have done, but that she made her escape and took refuge in the room where she had previously slept—the women's bed-room; she went to bed with one of the women, but had not been long there when the Master of the Workhouse came in, the women being all in bed, and insisted upon her getting up, and going with him to the "refractory" cell. She remon-

1475
strated; but as he persisted, she got up, and dressed herself partially, not being permitted to dress herself entirely; she was then driven across the yard (without shoes) to this cell, personal violence being mean while employed by the Master, who pushed her so violently that she fell in the yard, and even that was not enough (she abused him, it was true), he thought fit to strike her more than once before he thrust her into the cell, where she was kept all night, not for any offence, but merely because it was the regulation of the house that she was not to be admitted into the house before being examined by the medical officer and pronounced fit for the "probationary" ward. She was the next morning so examined and pronounced fit, and admitted into that ward, where she slept that night, and next morning made her escape, for the purpose of making her complaint to the Guardians; and having got over the wall, which her masculine habits enabled her to scale, she went to a public-house to wait until it should be time to attend the Board; there she had a single half-pint of beer (and the master had on oath admitted that she was not at all intoxicated); and, meetting one of the Guardians, she stated her intention of appealing to them, and implored him to be her friend when she went to the Board. In the anti-room she met the mistress of the house (wife of the master who had so treated her), and that person immediately insisted that she should not see the Guardians; and, though the woman was not then an inmate of the House, ordered her to be taken again to that hideous cell, she entreating that it might not be so, and declaring that the consequences would be fearful—that, in fact, she could not tell what might not be the result—and resisting so that two or three men were required to carry her to the cell, one of them dragging her by the hair of her head and another by her feet; loud remonstrances were made by more than one "man" present, who implored them to recollect her sex; she received some serious and severe injuries in the scuffle, and ultimately was lodged in the cell, the time then being about noon. The master of the House (not then being present) being at his dinner—an hour or two afterwards, 'a woman came exclaiming "Mary Miller would hang herself!" to which the master replied—"Well, and let her hang!" Now he (the Bishop of Exeter) did not
1476
believe that the man seriously meant that, he had no doubt he only regarded it as an idle threat (which he was perhaps accustomed to hear from persons in her position), and he believed, that those words brutal as they were, did not proceed from any indifference as to whether the woman committed suicide; but it would at least show that the master had not the feelings of a man when he thus could speak on such an event being described to him as likely to occur. The master went on with his dinner. A few minutes afterwards another woman came, exclaiming, "Come, or you will be too late. She will hang herself; she has tried it once, and is about to attempt it again!" "I'll stop that," answered the man, and be immediately had recourse to his handcuffs, examined the screws, &c., and while making this investigation a third woman came in, announcing that the poor creature had effected her purpose, and that she was indeed, dead. On this, he proceeded to the cell, and found she was dead. He, then, however, indicated nothing of the feeling that other men would probably have shown. The poor creature was persecuted even after death. They would not allow the ordinary decencies to be bestowed upon the corpse. At the inquest the greater portion of the circumstances he had thus narrated were proved; but the Coroner would not allow evidence to be given of what had led to her great excitement. He said the question was not what was the cause of the act of suicide, but whether she was sane or not at the time. He (the Bishop of Exeter) was not going to find fault with that high judicial officer in the discharge of his functions, and if the Coroner had stated that, he doubted not he had stated it on his belief as to his duty; but the Coroner was one of the Guardians. Subsequent investigations had taken place before the Guardians, in which all the circumstances he had stated were elicted. This was the resolution to which the Board came:—
Penzance Union Adjourned Board Meeting, October 13, 1840.
"The Board having gone into the case of Mary Miller, and the Coroner having read over the evidence on the inquest, and the Board in addition having obtained every information in its power—Resolved, that the Board does not consider that there has been any punishment inflicted on Mary Miller which has not been entered in the Punishment-book; and with reference to any irregularity committed to-

1477
wards the said Mary Miller by any of the officers, this Board is of opinion, that the statements to that effect are unfounded and untrue, with the exception, that the refractory ward was not absolutely necessary as a place of security in this case on the 29th ult., and that the Chairman shall admonish the governor to avoid a similar use of that ward in future."
An investigation was afterwards entered into under the superintendence of Colonel Wade, the result of which was, that every fact which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had stated to their Lordships was proved. Colonel Wade made his report to the Commissioners in London, and they immediately sent down a peremptory order for the dismissal of the master and mistress, with this remark:—
"Inasmuch, as the excitement of Mary Miller's feelings, which led to suicide, appears to have been the immediate consequence of the unjustifiable violence with which she not being then an inmate of the workhouse, was taken to the refractory ward—i. e. the prison."
One might have thought that the matter would have ended there. But it had not. The Guardians had, in the first instance, declined to comply with the order of the Commissioners; they had addressed to the Commissioners a memorial entreating of them to allow the master to retain his place. But the Commissioners had again expressed, and in still stronger terms, their reprobation of the man's conduct, and had peremptorily insisted on his removal. The Guardians had then found it necessary to remove him, but had thought fit to offer him a vote of thanks. Such was the conduct of that Board of Guardians, and it was for such proceedings that he (the Bishop of Exeter) ventured to say that those Guardians ought not to have the confidence of the Commissioners. It was well, he thought that the subject had been brought under their Lordships' notice. The great security which the people of this country had for the tolerable exercise of the enormous powers given to the Boards of Guardians in this country was to be found in the fact that for any gross violation of duty they were amenable to the judgments of that House and of the other House of Parliament, so that their enormities would not, at least, pass without reprobation. Unhappily, however, words were till the punishment which their Lordships could inflict in the instance to which he was then adverting. But those Guardians might, at least, be made to know the sense
1478
which their Lordships entertained of their conduct. He believed that if the papers for which he moved were communicated they would prove the truth of every material circumstance which he had stated. He hoped their Lordships would give the country the advantage of having all the facts established upon incontrovertible evidence. The possession of the knowledge which would thus be communicated would be at all times desirable, but would be more especially so at a period like the present, when the attention of the Legislature was about to be called to some measure for amending the Poor Law Act of the year 1834. He should not make an apology for having trespassed on the time of their Lordships, for he was sure that in that case no apology was necessary. The right Rev. Prelate then concluded by moving, "That all communications to and from the Board of Poor Law Commissioners, relative to the case of Mary Miller, be laid before their Lordships."
Lord Wharncliffesaid, upon the right Rev. Prelate's own statement, the Commissioners had dismissed the master of the Union Work house. Three years had elapsed since these things occurred, and since then there had been three elections of the Board of Guardians of that Union; so that it was not likely that any charge could be substantiated against individuals. If the House, under all these circum stances thought that the paupers ought to be produced, he on the part of the Government had no objection to their being produced.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, if the noble Lord could say that the individuals composing the present Board of Guardians, or any of them, were not the same as those who formed the Board to which he referred, he would not press his motion.
Lord Wharncliffecould not speak positively, but he believed that at least one half of the present Board of Guardians were not re-elected members.
The Earl of Radnorobserved, that even if all had been re-elected, their re-election was a proof of the ratepayers having been satisfied with their conduct.
Lord Campbellobserved, if the papers were produced, it had better be for the purpose of their being sent to the State Paper Office, there to be kept for some future historian of Poor Law Unions.
Lord Kenyonregretted the noble and learned lord should have made that ob-

1479
servation. He certainly thought it was well that the House should know in an authentic shape the sufferings of this unfortunate person, and by whom they had been caused.
Lord Campbellsaid he had alluded to the length of time that had unfortunately elapsed. If the case had occurred recently it might be desirable that the matter should be brought before them, and that it should be investigated with a view to punish the offending parties. But, after a lapse of three years, any attempt at interference on the part of that House would be useless. The facts were already notorious, they were known to all the world; and it could only be with a view to remove the Guardians that their Lordships could properly be called upon to take any notice of the case. But the present Guardians could not be removed, as they had been elected since the circumstances had occurred. He could therefore see no reason why those papers should be produced.
The Bishop of Exetersaid that the noble and learned Lord had dealt with the case as if, because it had occurred three years ago, it was unfit to be made the subject of investigation at present. But he begged of their Lordships to recollect what had been the history of their legislation with respect to the Poor Laws during the last three years. During that period the discussion of the subject had been deferred from year to year, in order to afford them a convenient opportunity for taking the whole case into their consideration. They were this year to consider the subject, and he agreed with the noble Lord who had spoken from the cross benches (Lord Kenyon), that nothing could be more desirable than that Parliament should, at the present time, know what were the enormities which were committed with impunity under the present law. He said with impunity, for let them recollect that all that the Commissioners could have done in that case had been done by them. They had insisted on the removal of the master of the workhouse, but they had no power to inflict any other punishment. It was evident that if the cruelty and the inhumanity of the master had been practised in a more secret manner, his conduct would not have been unacceptable to the Guardians. They had even done that which, he believed, no other persons in this country would have done—they had rewarded him with their thanks He thought it very desirable that
1480
they should have such facts before them when they were about to consider the Poor Law Act. It had been said that some of those persons had been re-elected as Guardians, and that that could only take place in consequence of their having possessed the confidence of the rate-payers. After such a statement as that, and after the manner in which his motion had been met, he felt compelled, by a sense of duty, to press that motion. He, therefore, moved that these papers be produced.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he could see no reason for moving for the papers, unless something was to be founded on them. It appeared, undoubtedly, that very gross conduct had been committed by the master of the workhouse, and that the Guardians had supported him; but that the Commissioners had insisted on his dismissal, and that he had accordingly been dismissed. A new election of Guardians had, however, since taken place, and he did not see what motion could, at present, be founded on those papers. If the right rev. Prelate meant to found a motion on them there could be no objection to their production. But he would beg of the right rev. Prelate to consider the inconvenience which would arise from moving for papers for mere curiosity, and for no other purpose.
The Bishop of Exetersaid that as the facts were admitted he should not press his motion. He should therefore withdraw that motion.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid that if the right rev. Prelate had pressed his motion he should have offered no opposition to it; but he wished to advert to a circumstance of recent occurrence. The right rev. Prelate had lately thought it his duty to allude to a recent transaction relating to the present Board of Guardians of Penzance. It would be in the recollection of the House that the right rev. Prelate had a short time since made a statement which involved a very heavy censure of that board, as well as of a clergyman whom they had appointed to officiate in the workhouse. Now, he had no personal knowledge of the matter, but he had been informed by Gentlemen of the highest respectability residing in that part of the country where the circumstances were alleged to have occurred, that the statement of the right rev. Prelate was inaccurate, and that the Board of Guardians had addressed a communication to the Commis-

1481
sioners, in which they justified themselves from the imputations cast upon them, and stated the grounds upon which they considered themselves to be deeply indebted to the clergyman in question, for the manner in which he had during a number of years administered the consolations of religion in the workhouse. The communication which they had thus addressed to the Commissioners contained the vindication as they conceived of their conduct, and he thought it would be but fair that that communication should be laid before the House, as it was written in answer to a statement made to their Lordships by the right rev. Prelate.
The Bishop of Exetersaid that if the noble Marquess moved for the communication in question, he should most cordially support him.
The Marquess of Lansdownethen moved that there be laid before the House a copy of any Communications addressed by the Guardians of the Union of Penzance to the Poor Law Commissioners, relative to the appointment of a Chaplain in the Workhouse of Penzance.
The Bishop of Exeterwould suggest to the noble Marquess that it would be advisable to enlarge the terms of the motion, by moving, "That there be laid before the House a copy of all communications made to and from the Poor Law Commissioners respecting the appointment of a Chaplain to the poor-house of Penzance." They would then have the whole case before them, and not merely an ex parte statement.
Lord Wharncliffethought it would be better that they should have the whole of the correspondence laid before them.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that he had no objection to adopt the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate. He should, however, introduce a further amendment, by moving for
"Copies or Extracts of all Correspondence between the Guardians of Penzance Union and the Poor Law Commissioners, relative to the Appointment of a Chaplain in that Union."
It was possible that the communication of the Board of Guardians might contain allusions to the statement of the right rev. Prelate, and to what had passed in that House, which it might be proper to suppress.
Motion of the Bishop of Exeter withdrawn; Motion of the Marquis of Lansdowne agreed to.—House then adjourned.