Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-10 00:00:00

THE LATE AFFILLIATION CASE.

Yesterday morning, a special meeting of the Guardians of the
above union was convened at the Workhouse, Mill-lane, Everton, for
the purpose of making a full investigation Into the charge that had
been preferred against Mr. Edward Gough, by a female named
Margaret Clarke, alleging that he was the father of her child. This
meting was, it will be recollected, called in pursuance of a resolution
passed at the weekly board. .

The Rev. Mr. Badnall, the chairman of the board, presided. Tho
oth-r guardians present were—Messrs. Lodger, Morris, Richmond,
French, Heyes, Parkin, Owen, Clarke. Abrahams, Edwards, Sagar,
Tattersa,l, Bird, Almond, Pitts, Stone, Davis, Mawdaley, Roberts,
and Whitby. There were also several guardians from Toxteth-park
present, amongst whom we observed Messrs. Batten, Siddeley, H ir•
rison, &c., &c.

Mr. Hoiden, solicitor, appeared to represent Mr. Gough ; but the
female, Clarke, was not, in the first instance, present in parson, or by
a legal adviser, although, by the instructions of the guardians, the
following note had been sent to her by the clerk, and also to her
solicitor, Mr. Bluck

West Derby Union, 2, Elliott-street, Liverpool, Nov. 5. 1857.
The Guardians of the West Derby Union, not feeliqg satisfied with
the result of the inquiry which took place on Tuesday last, before
the magistrates of Liverpool, with reference to the charge made against
the Master of toe Workhouse, 1163'8 resolved to make a full investiga-
tion of the matter, at a special meeting of the board, to be holden in
the board-room, on Monday next, at eleven o'clock, on which occasion
your attendance 'a requested, with that of any witness you may wi.h
t ) have examined. You will also be at liberty to have present any
professional adviser or friend you may wish.—l am,
W. CLIJAVES, Union Clerk.

The Chairman said he did not know whether Mrs. Clarke was
present or not, or her legal adviser, or her witnesses—they may be
here, but he was not aware whether, she or they were there or not.
He hoped in the course of that painful inquiry that all would dismiss
from their minds anything like prejudice or partial feeling, and that
nothing but the strictest impartiality would be observed; and that
they would form their opinions solely from the evidence that would
be laid before them. lie was sure, when they considered what was
at stake, when they considered that their own reputation as a Hoard
of Guardians was at stake, as well a, their reputation—and what was
dearer to a man, whether in high life or low life—than his clow actor
and reptititi n ? He, therefore, exhorted them to dismiss from
their minds all feelings of partisanship —of all party -of all political
feeling, whether on the ene side or the other, and do equal j istice
to He would not detain them with any further remarks then,
but ha did hope that the resu't of the inquiry would be such, that Mr,
Goagh would come out clear, and"that he would still deserve the
opinion they had an entertained o f him.
Mr. Holden then said that he did not know what course the
Zuardians intended to parsue, in the investigation, but he thought
the best course he could adopt would be to retard the evidence as
taken before the magistrates, from the reports in the newspapers,
which, he would say, were all substan lolly correct, and then he
would call other evidence before them.

By the s inetion of the Board, Mr. Holden then raad the o7iden ae
as reported in the pipers of Wednes lay last.

Having gone through with that, he said he thought before the
investigation, in which they were then engaged, had been brought to
a conclusion, he should be enabled to produce such evidence before
them, to prove that there was not the slightest foundation for the
charge th .t had been brought against Mr. Gough, and that there WAS
no re'iance to be placed in the statement made by Margaret Clarke.
He should not only do that, but he should prove th et she had been
guilty of perjury. Ha should be enabled to exonerate Mr. Gough,
La' on the 10th of February, one of the days on which she had
alleged that a connection took place between them—that on that
night he was out of the house; and on the 12th of Febru ry, on the
other occa.ion, he should prove that Mr. Allen, one of the relieving
(Akers, was with him, during the evening, and such an intercourse
could not have tat en place. He should also p eve that on the 23rd
of February, Margaret Clarke was from the house for severe 1
hours, and a'so at various times she had told persons in the
house that, on that 23rd day of Feb., she had seen her husband on
board a vessel, and had had connection with him. For his part, he
helieved'that the whole tale was untrue, and that Mr. Gough wan
perfectly in ocent, and that the magistrate was not justified in
making the observation he had done, on the ex parte statement of the
woman, and before any witnesses had been examined for the
defendant. He then called the following

WITNESSES.

D:. NT...vins, the Medical Officer or the Union. He slid he recollected

having a conversation with Margaret Clarke, when she acknowledged
tring In the family way. She than said that her husband was the
father of the child. He could n.t tell the date this conversation took
place. She was confined a short time after she expected to be. She
hal told him tkat her husband was the father of the child on snore
than one occasion. She never made any allusion to him that any
other parse a then her husband way the father of the ch Id.
Mr. H. Heyes, one of the Guardians, was next called. He said he
knew the woman Clarke, and had freque.tly seen her in the work -
hoase. 0 the 25th of Jane last—he believed that was the date—the
husband was taken before the mvgistrates. He was standing by the
An,r of the nit's m'
^ ..s hire cr-n.grt•Nrisi-tuoi',lll'ar oz fife
child, but that she would not do so to pease them, as the child was
her ha.baid's, and I will not make myself a whore to please them."
Phis was about four months ago.

Mr. Kennedy, the porter of the Wockh nee, said. Tn Feb., 1350, hs
was porter, and produced the book kept by him. In that book he
kept the names of all the parties who entered aad left the house. On
the 10th of Feb., in that yea•, Mr. Gough left the house at' ton
minutes past six, an I did not return until twenty minutes past ten.
On the 12th of Feb., Allen, the relieving o'fiLer, came to the work-
house at forty--foar minutes pad five o'clock in the evening, and did not
leave until fifty-fi *a minutes past ten the same night. He then pro-
duced t le paupers' liberty book, from that it evened that on the 23d of
Feb. Margaret Clarke left the house at forty minutes past ten in the
morning, and dii not return until a quarter past three in tha

afternoon. On the 16th of April she also left the house at a quarter
past ten, and did not return until twenty minutes' past two in the
afternoon. She could not have left the house at aiy other time for
any length of time without it being entered in the book. Sze might
have been out fo7 a few minutes and it would not have been entered.
The entries were flr:t made on a slate, and then copied into a book.

He did not think it p)esible that she coald bar! been out for an hour

and a half or twa hours without an entry being made. No person
goes into the house or leaves It without an entry is made in the book.
Mr. Allen, the relieving officer, spoke to having vary frequently

sport the evenings in the workhouse with Mr. Gough, but never
with any other oftber or inmate, and during those visits he had never
seen anything unbecoming in his conduct, nor hi l he over heard of
any misconduct.

Mr. Gough, the gove nor of the workhouse, was then called. He
said, I am the derenlant in the case that was brought by gargaret
Clarke in the police court.

Mr. Holden : Did you ever take any familaritie3 whatever
with her ?
Mr. G :ugh : Never.
Mr. Holden : Did you ever have any criminal intercourse with her ?
Mr. Gough : Never.

[.l number of letters, the same as those produced in the police
court. were then pat in and read, from which it apeared that after
the woman had left the house she had at varhons times applied for
assistance, as loans, and that he had sent her lOs, 23 61, and 55., but
on the 7111 of October she had sent a letter, informing him that he
must make some arrangements for the child, and to meet her at Mr .
Cleaver's office for the purpose of making such arrangement,.to save
expense. A number of other letters was also producel, sho sing that
from Feb.2s to the 13th of June, Mr. Gough had made a number of
inquiries at va-ieus ports for the p arpose of ascerta'ning where her
husband was to be found, but wincrit success.]
ie then went on to expla'n that Mr. Alen had been in the habit
of visiting him for the purpose of teaching his daughters music,
and after that had spent the even'ng wi la him. He also stalest that
there was no lock or key on the parlour door, and while s tting there
they were very frequen ly interrupted, and that the money he had
given to the womv', was from the fact that she had been very
attentive to his wife end children while nursing them, and what he
had done was from benevolence and charity, because he thought she
was deserving of it.

The Rev, Mr. Moore, the late chap'a'n at the workhouse, then
went foto an explanation of the part be hid taken in the affair,
from which it appeared, that it was entirely through his interc:ding
that Mr. Goaugh had sent the woman the 10s. after the letter was
sent, and that he had himself while visiting her, after she left the
house, given her small sums of money. On one occasion, when he
called at her house, she was out arid a woman was there, and
inu.eados were then thrown out that Mr. Gongs was Vie father of
the ch ld, and when she did come in he ordered the wom an to leave
the room, a d then ha as'iled her the question, and she said, " Mr.
Gough has nothing to do vrth it—it is my husband's child." He
also detailed what kad taken place when she was in the workhouse.
when it was discovered that she was in the family-way, when he
had most severely cross-examined her, and she had give❑ the same
answer. At a subs, qttent per.cd of the luvestigation, and at the
request of the woman Clarke, who was then in attendance, the rev.
gentleman said he had omitted to state, that he had subsequently
seen her, when she had told him that her (thild was Mr. Gough's. He
to d her that he thought it very strange that s',e should have
previously always said it was her husband's, She said she had a
difficulty about its maintenance, when ho replied, there is no dillicalty
about that, as "leg ally it is your husband's."

Cat ,erine Cane and Mary Parker, spoke to having Ward her say
that the child was her husband's, ani that she had seen him on Ward
a bhtp.

Toe Rev. Mr. Leslie s?oke to having a eonverAtion with the
worn in on the 29th of Sedtember last, when ,hs had told him that
her husband hai refused to live with her, from the romance about
her child.

Mrs. Roberts, Mary Almond, Catherine Hewitsan, Afr. Charles
Bolton, a d several other witnesses were then called, all of whom
spoke to hearing the woman say at different times, that the child was
by her husband.

Mr. Cleaver, the clerk, havin; spoken tl the same facts, stated
that when her husbanl was before the magistrates, ha heard the
wumma tell the age of her children, but did not give a definite answer
about her yonogest. He also stated that when she w. s examined,
she said that she bad not sesn her husband from December, 1854
bat that he had been in Liverpool fro a the 24th of February to the
6th of April, After her husband WAS committed, She told him that

Mr. Gough was the father of the child, and asked what steps she
should take in the matter. He also proved that the child had baen
registered by the mother as belonging to the husband, and had signed
the entry.

A woman named Mary Nichols was then called, and her statement
was to the effect that she had seen Mrs. Clarke at the police court
and that she had told her that her husband, out of revenge, was
making her swear the child to a rich gentleman, and.that she had
subsequently ascertained that it was to Mr. Gough, who she knew to
be a most respectable man, and she could not rest until she went and
told him, which she did on the same day. This, she declared, was the
truth.

This being the whole of the evidence, Margaret Clarke, who had
been present a portion of the time, was asl'ed whether she bad any-
thingto say, and upon her answering in the negative, and that she
had left the whole case in the hands of her solicitor, but had
attended in consequence of receiving a note from Mr. Cleaver, was
requested to withdraw, which she did.

Mr. Holden then addressed the board, contending that Mr. Gough
was perfectly innocent, and that the whole charge was a vile
conspiracy against him to obtain money.

The Rev. Mr. Tattersall having stated it as his opinion that Mr.
Gough had teen proved perfectly innocent, to the satisfaction of all
parties, moved the following raso'ntion
:
After the most careful investigation by the Guardians of the West
Derby Union into the chore alleged against Mr. Goukh by Margret
C;arke, of his being Vie father of her child, they have cmae to a
unanimons opinion of the perfect innocence of the Governor, and of
the fals hood of the complainant's statement in every particular,
wh'ch statement they cannot but believe to be the production of
malice and conspiracy. In recording their votes of perfect confidence
in the Governor, they take this opportunity of pt.blicly stating their
regret that the presidieg magistrate should hive anticipated the
Governor's defence, and inane remarks in the dismissal of the cese
ca'culated to mislead public opinion upon the matter, and to seriously
damage Mr. Gongh's charac-er.
Mr. Ledger seconded the motion.'

Mr. Abrahams ani ',lr. Taylor also spoke in support of th 3 resole •
tion, as did also Mr. Clarke ant Mr. Pitts.: ;
The Chairman then aid essed the board, observing that he was
morally convinced that Mr. Gough was innocent, and of that he was
as sure as that he was then addressing them. He then explained some
portion Of the evidence, and concluded by expressing a hope that the
resolution would he unanimously adopted.
The resolution was then pat from the chair and unanimously
adopt d, amidst considerable apdlause.
The result of the ,nvestizatioa haling been communicated to Mr.
Gough, who was much affected, ties board adjourned.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. -YESTERDAY.

THE QUE N (ON THEE PROSE OUT lON ( F THE GUARDIANS OF
THE WEST DERBY UNION) v. JAMES GOODWIN-
CII 3I iNAL IN .3.IMATON-WORKIIJUSE ABUSES.

Sir Frederick Thesiger:showed cause against a rule obtained by Mr.
Brett on behalf of Mr. James Birch aed the other guardians of the
West Derby Union for a criminal information against Mr. James
Goodwin for having composed and published certain scandalous
libels. Mr. Goodwin was a ra'epayer and the schoolmaAer of a
chariry school in the union, and he alleged that he wrote the letters
complained of bona fide for th 3 purpose of having an inquiry
ins ituted into certain matters in which he believed the ratepayers
were interested. The letter containing the principal alleged libel
was dated the 12th Ma;, 1857, and wa addressed to the chairman of
the board of guardians. It asked if it was customary for the guardians
of the union to pe mit contract rs to send inferior articles to
those they hrd engaged to supply, and if not, why
they had permitted James Birch to send i❑ potatoes called
" blue farmers," which were of inferior qoaltk to those he had con-
tracted to furnish the:workhouse. It also asked why they had
allowed him, wltre a guardian, to supply flour to the Union, his
brotl,e, Thomas Birch, being the contractor. The letter also made
other charges is the interrogative form against Birch, and the board
generally. The clerk of the board replied that the letter had been
referred to a committee of investigation, and subsequently offered
Mr. Goodwin an opportunity of substantiating Me charges before
that committee, but Mr. Goodwin declined to avail himself of it on
the ground that an inquiry Mare such a committee would be
illusory, as they had no power over the board and could give no
redress. Sir Frederick showed by reference to the affidavit
of the defendant, that fur a series of years the tender
fur fl rur cf Thomas Birch, who was a farmer, had been
accepted, and that he had received very large sums of
money annually on account of them, he not being by business a
flour merchant, and it appearing that James Birch kept a flour mill
and sold flour. The learned council further showed that Thomas
Birch had for sever al years furaishod the union with potatoes to a
considerable amount, and he sa'd he had evidence to prove that flour
and potatoes were seat to the workhouse on behalf of James Birch in
1838,1851, an t 1855.

Mr. Brett having been be trd in support of the rule,

Lord Campbell said this case very much resembled " The King v.
Captain Bei ey," in which L rd Erskine male his first celebrated
speech, and where the charges against the defendant was for libel in
comp'aining of certain abases in the administration of Greenwich
Hospital. although the truth of all the charges was not proved, it
malice, and Lord-Man-sfie!trand the whole tour. were of opinion that
the application was answered, and refused to make the rule ab;o-
lute for a criminal information. Without pronouncing any opinion
on the conduct of James Birch, and for his sake he (Lord
Campbell) would not enter vet/ minutely into the evidence on
either side, he clearly came to the coaclusion that Mr.
Goodwin, the defendant, was actuated by laudable motives if what he
said in his affidavit was true, viz. - that he was entirely him from any
personal spite, and believed thst It was .'or the good of the paupe-s that
he should tring forwar.l these charges. He must say there were very
reasonable grounds for suspicion—there were gross abuses in the
confine of the guardians of this union, and looking to the situation
filled by Mr. Goodwin, he could not at ell blame him for trying to
expose 'hem and bring them to justice. What struck him when the
apalication was made was the statement that the defendant had a
fall opportunity of having the matter fairly investigated but declined
it, and refused to bri rg forward his evidence. That had now been
clearly and satisfactorily esplait ed. It was shown that the proposed
inquiry was to take piece before a standing committee, composed of
some of those against whom. the charges were made, and a fair in-
quiry could not be expect:d from such a tribunal. He must say,
therefai e, that what Goodwin a.kel, viz.—an investigation before the
whole board was not unreasonable, and strong evidence had been
given that he was act ng in the conscientious belief that he w.,s doing
no more than his duty to these very worthy objects of charity who
lived in the workhouse.

Mr. Justice Coleridee was entirely of the same opinion, He
entirely decl ned entering into the actual state of facts referred to in
the affidavits, but it was clear, from the affidavits ou both sides, that
strung grounds of ouspicion existed,; and he was Sil' istled that there
wcs no ground f,,r believing that Goodwin proceeded otherwise than
from bone fide and from good motives. He nought it right to add,
as a general remark with regard to bodies of this kind, that it was
not desirable to treat with toe strung a hand infeilor persons in the
situation of Goodwin, who were bold enough to make such allegat ons.
Heaven knows that a schoolmaster, perhaps in their employ, but at
all events very much under their influence, meet have difficulties
enough in bringing forward a case of this description. One also
knows how extremely difficult it must be for the paupers themselves
to expose malpractices from which they suffer. Abuses in these
institutions were among the most misch evens and oppressive that
con d be, and therefore he should be very sorry to hold too strict a
hand over such inquiries as that sought by the defenda it in this case.
Mt. Justice Wightman s.id the question was not so much w!rether
the charg.2s were really well founded to the letter, but whether
G sodwin was actuated by a sense of duty towards the paupers, wills
whom he was to ace tain extent connected. As schoolmaster he had
a public duty to perform, and he was justified in expo,ing any
malpractices which might have existed in the workhouse, and there
was sufficient on the taco of the affidavits to show that he might
have entertained a sincere opinion that an improper system was
carried on in the workhouse, and that in truth
,the paupers did not
g,it the allowances which according to the contracts they were en.
titled to receive. And as the court was influenced by a sincere
desire to reform such abuses where tie sy existed contrary to law, and
seeing that the motives here were devoid of all malice. whi.ih was an
essential i gredieat in tisese ca,,es, he agreed , with his learned
b 7othera that the rule should be discharged,
Mr. Justice Erie having expressed the srme opinion,
The rule was discharged.

Sir Frederick The3iger said the defendant was a very poor man,
and he h ,ped their lordships would n t make him pay the costs.
Lord Campbell —Let the ral2 be discharged with costs.
Sir Frederick The:iger—To be paid by Mr. James Birch?
Lord Campbell—Yes; he is pat forward in the case.
Ru'e discharged with co ts.