The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-02 00:00:00

the evidence—and first the written testimony of two of
my colleagues :
" The General Board of Health, Whitehall,
August i°
" We declare mast solemnly that we were present at a
board hell on the 3,)th of January, 1851, the day on w ch
it is recorded in the minutes that Lord Seymour attended
and made a motion that was not seconded,' and we fur her
declare that Lord Shaftesbury was present and male the
proposition which was adopted. Ou our remembrance
being called to Lord Seymour's allegation that he had been
told that his motion had not been seconded, we declare
that he was not so told. by us, or by Lord Shaftesbury in
our presence on that occasion ; nor do we believe that he
was so,tola on any other occasion whatsoever.
" EDWIN CHADWICK.
"T. SOUTHWOOD SMITH."
Hear now the letter from Mr. Macaulay, the secretary,
who was present at the time, and who writes to me to-
day in the following terms : .
" lip impression is, that you were present at the meet-
ing of the board on the 30th of January, 1851. The matter,
however, can be placed beyond the possibility of doubt by
reference to the fair and rough minutes of the 30th of
January, where the attendances of each member of the
board are carefully recorded. " C. WACAULAY'"
IVhat say the minutes? I refer to the fair minutes—
I refer to the rough minutes, and I find—
" Extrict from minutes of Thursday, January 30, 1831.
Present—Lord seyinour, M P. ; Lord Ashley, M.P., Ed-
win Chadwick, Esq.; Dr. S Smith."
An I now I am to be told, in the presence of the country
and of the House of Commons, -that, speaking upon my
honour, I have been guilty of a falsehood when I assert
what I have done, not upon my single testimony alone,
but supported by that of my two colleagues, of the
secretary, and of the minutes, which cannot lie, Now,
one more statement. He goes on to say—
" Lord Shaftesbury hail male it a charge against him
that he had never attended the board ; this was not the
case, though it was the case that he had ceased to attend
the hoard when he found by.experience that it was to no
purpose that he attended a board where he was syste-
matically overborne. while he could occupy his time to
really useful public purposes in his own office. The noble
earl had added that he (Lord Seymour) had told him, in
confidence, that he never meant to do anything that he
was not compelled to do. He would not be so discourteous
as to go into any discussion with the noble earl as the ex-
pression so attributed to him ; all he would observe was,
that if he had said this to the noble earl in confidence, his
confidence had been much misplaced."
Hear what I did say :—I asserted that he stayed away,
not becatise he was opposed, but because he had pre-
determined not to come. and I proved ;t by his state-
ment to me a few days after he took office that he could
not attend, by his allowing 68 boards to be held between
his first and-second attendance, 5 between the second
and third, 10 between the third and fourth, and 94 be-
tween the fourth and fifth, when for the first arid only
time he met with a difference of opinion. I say that this
completely proves that he never intended to come to the
board ; and when he says be did not conic because he
was constantly overborne, my simple reply to him is,
that lie never did intend to come. Again he says that
he told me in confidence that he never meant to do any-
thing he was not compelled to do. I never said that
Lord Seymour had said to me in confidence that he
would not do more than he was compelled to do.
Lord Seymour never said it in confidence to any one ; he
said it to myself, he said it to my colleagues, he said it
to Lord Ehrington, and he wrote it to the board on
the 14th of January, 1851, in these words :
" It is not in my power to attend the meetings of the
Board of Health without neglect of my duties here."
Further on, speaking of the period when the powers of
the Board of Health as conferred by the act were about
to close, the noble lord said :
"This was precisely the time when the Legislature was
properly called upon to review the operation of the mea-
sure, and nothing could be more unreasonable than the
proposition of a noble earl elsewhere—the non-official ;nem-
lo2r and patron of the board (Lord Shaftesbury)—that such
review of its proceedings was an unhandsome attack upon
absent individuals."

I never said that, nor anything like that. I said that
for any gentleman to speak of men like his then col-
leagues, and to say that they "could be made to do their
duty only by fear of losing their salaries," was an in-
decent and cruei charge which ought not to be made
against men—against men to whom no notice had been
given, and who, therefore, had no means of denying
what was said. That is what I said, and what I must
emphatically repeat, for I think that a charge made in
such a tone and temper and manner against gentlemen
as good in every respect as himself was an act of gross
and intolerable indecency :
" In order (he says) that such objectionable proceedings
might not occur again, he had sent to the Board of Health
requiring copies of all the minutes of their proceedinga, so
that he might see what was going on. it being impossible
for him at that time—the Board of Works and the Board
of Woods being then united—to attend at the Board of
Health, who were in the habit of holding boards every day
for some thee or four minutes per diem."
Now, anything more unwarrantable, and, I say again,
more cruel, towards those meritorious amid hard-working
men I never yet heard. I will undertake to prove that
the average attendances at that board were five hours
a-day, at least—sometimes six or seven hours ' • arid,
when the cholera was raging, and in times of great
pressure, as much as 10 hours a-day. Almost every
night, also, business was taken home by the two
commissioners, on winch they had to occupy them-
selves during the night, in order to prepare themselves
to receive deputations or transact important business on
the following morning. The noble lord went on to say :
"He must express the opinion that the jobbing of the
Board of Health presented an amount of dirt which must
be vory startling to the clean party in question. The wholo
thing was perfectly monstrous."
Here, again, is a charge of corruption which he knows
well he cannot prove ! This he calls, no doubt, "a re-
view of the board's proceedings ;" without inqqiry, with-
out power of reply on the pert of the accused. Is it wise,
is it just, is it safe that any body of legislators should
proceed to act upon such evidence as this ? These are
samples of the whole speech ; there is hardly an asser-
tion that might not be met by as fl it a contradiction.
They show the spirit of the man, the character of his
c ,arges, and the whole system of the attacks on the
board. He was pleased to reflect very contemptuously
on myself and all my public actions and opi-
nions. Partly through ind.fference, and partly throuoh
inability, I shall not en leavour to make any reply. It
may be an infirmity, or even a vice, but so the fact is,
that I do net much care for the opinion of my contempo-
raries, and nothing at all for the opinion of posterity.
What I do care for is the conviction that I have, by God's
blessing, " done my duty in that state of life to which
it has pleased God to call me," arid that conviction cannot
he taken away either' by Lord Seymour or the House of
Commons. (Hear, hear ) The noble earl concluded by
moving--fora return of copies-of any correspondence from
local boards of health, in-•rePly to inqiiiiies from towns
where the application of the Public Health Act was under
consideration ; of any communications from chairmen or
officers of :local boards, on the opposition made to the
continuance of the General
•Board ; and also a copy of
any memorial- from the clergy of the metropolis iu rela-
tion to the 'Metropolitan Litertnente Act.
Their lortlehips adjourned at 25 minutes to 9 o'cilock.
t