SUICIDE IN A POOR LAW UNION CELL. (Hansard, 25 March 1844)

The Bishop of Exeter
said, 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 Wharncliffe
said, 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 Exeter
said, 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 Wharncliffe
could 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 Radnor
observed, that even if all had been re-elected, their re-election was a proof of the ratepayers having been satisfied with their conduct.

Lord Campbell
observed, 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 Kenyon
regretted 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 Campbell
said 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 Exeter
said 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 Wharncliffe
said, 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 Exeter
said that as the facts were admitted he should not press his motion. He should therefore withdraw that motion.

§ The Marquess of Lansdowne
said 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 Exeter
said that if the noble Marquess moved for the communication in question, he should most cordially support him.

§ The Marquess of Lansdowne
then 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 Exeter
would 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 Wharncliffe
thought it would be better that they should have the whole of the correspondence laid before them.

§ The Marquess of Lansdowne
said, 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.