The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, AUGUST 4, 1860.

had arrived when a different course should be pursued. Had
the Liberal members been en the Tory side of the house
they would have been open-mouthed at the practice to

which they had recourse, in endeavouring to smuggle im-
portant votes through the house. (Hear, hear.) Tinder
these circumstances he felt bound to protest against the
conduct of the Government, though his own party. (Hear.)
THE CASE OF THE REV. L. C. P. FOX, ROMAN

CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN.
The O'DONOGHUE called the attention of the house
to the dismissal of the Rev. Mr. Pox from the chaplaincy
of the South Dublin Union by the Irish Poor Law Corn-
naissioners. He apologised for delaying the house in going
into committee, but the subject, which he felt bound to

bring forward, had created considerable sensation in Ire-
land, and he thonght it was entitled to be inquired into by

that house. Mr. Fox asserted most positively that he had
done nothing more nor less than hie duty, and
it was for discharging that duty that he was
dismissed. It appeared that the matron of the

union had received information which induced her to be-

Hove that some of the female paupers had stolen some of
the clothes of the institution. They refused to be searched

in the presence of the male officers of the union, and a row

ensued while they were being searched, which led to the

police being called in. The women were then taken
before a magistrate, who investigated the charge,
and was about to inflict severe punishment on them
whbn the Rev. Mr. Fox interfered, and gave a different
version of the affair. The consequence was, that
the magistrates considerably mitigated the sentence,
notwithstanding that the male officers of the Union con-
tradicted the statement of the Rev. Mr. Fox. This took
place on the 7th of April last, and on the 12th of the month
the master of the Union made a report to the guardians rela-
tive to what had taken place before the magistrate. After con-
c3nsid ering that report the guardians requested the Poor Law
commissioners to institute an enquiry, and accordingly
that body directed a sworn investigation to take place.
Mr. Fox was examined 'and swore that he witnessed the
most indelicate conduct of the male officers of the Union
in searching the women, one of whom was thrown down
and her clothes turned over her head. This statement was
corroborated by some of the females, but was denied by the
parties implicated. As the hon. member was proceeding,
Mr. BLACK said he must protest against the time of
the house being occupied with the consideration of an Irish
row, when there was so much important business to be
transacted. (Cries of " Hear, hear" and " Order.")
The SPEAKER said the hon. member (The O'Donoghue)
was in possession of the house. It was a matter entirely
for his discretion to what length he would occupy the at-
tention of the house.
The O'DONOGHUE then resumed, and contended that
the Rev. Mr. Fox was most unjustly dismissed, and con-
cluded with an earnest appeal to the house to do justice to
a clergyman who had stood forward in behalf of poor
young females, whom he considered were most unjustly
treated. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL said that the Poor Law Commis-
sioners were not responsible for what took place in a work-
house, the management of which was vested in the
guardians, and in this case they were merely responsible
for the manner in which this inquiry was conducted.
On the representation of the guardians, the commissioners
directed the investigation in question, and appointed Mr.
Otway one of their body, and a most respectable gentleman
to conduct the inquiry, which was appoinqd in accordance
with the provisions of the statute, and lasted four days.
The evidence taken was before the house, and, as might be
expected under the circumstances, was of a most conflict-
ing character. The charge made by the Rev. Mr. Fox
that the conduct of the officers was scandalous,
abominable, and obscene, was not sustained, but
at the same time they cast no imputation on
Mr. Fox, and believed that he had stated only what he
considered to be strictly ti ae. It appeared that Mr. Fox
was not in the room when the searching took place, and
there were two closed windows between him and the room.
The commissioners were responsible for the peace of the
workhouse, in which there were between 2,000 and 3,900
inmates; and as they could not dismiss the officers on charges
which were not established, they felt bound
to discharge Mr, Fox, not as a punishment, but
as a precaution to preserve the peace of the establish-
ment. To show the disorderly character of the inmates
of the workhouses referred to, he alluded to the facts that
recently seven women in that union were tried before a
magistrate for attempting to burn the building, and one of
them was sentenced to penal servitude, while shortly after
five others were convicted, and one of the number was
proved to have stolen some of the clothes of the union.
Sir G. BOWYER considered that the right hon. gentle-
man (Mr. Cardwell) had not given a satisfactory answer,
and that the evidence and the presumptions were in favour
of the statement of the Rev. Mr. Fox.
Mr. BUTT said that this was a matter of great import.
ance, as the commissioners had made a declaration, a rule
that would influence other Unions and materially affect the
administration of the Poor-law in Ireland. They vir-
tually asserted that they were to uphold officers of
a workhouse, and to visit with punishment a gentleman
like Mr. Fox for interfering with them in conformity
with the conscientious discharge of his duty. It was
admitted that the women were searched in the presence
of men, and there was nothing to justify the outrage on
the feelings of these poor females. The commissioners
were more to blame than even the master of the
workhouse in enduring the conduct of officials when they,
as he contended, violated decency and law.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the doctrine laid down by the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Cardwell), and contended that
commissioners should be responsible for the conduct of
masters of workhouses. If it went forth that officials were
upheld in the manner described, those persons would be
deterred in coming to give evidence against these officials,
where they might be subjected to such consequences as
dismissal from their situation.
Mr. DE ASY said that it would certainly have been bet-
ter if the paupers had been brought before the magistrate,
on a charge with having stolen the union clothing, but
at the same time he 'did not consider that the commissioners
could act differently to what they done under the circum-
stances.

Mr. VANCE said that, in his opinion, the commissioners
had no alternative, and were compelled to dismiss Mr. Fox,
as the charges against the officers were not proved, and
therefore they could not dismiss them.
After a few words from Colonel FRENCH,
Mr. MONSELL contended that the commissioners were
to blame, and that they should immediately re-instate
Mr. Fox. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Card well) should
throw over the commissioners and do justice between the
parties.
Lord FERMOY concurred fully in the views of the hon.
member (The O'Donoghue), to whom he felt indebted for
bringing this subject forward. He rose merely to supply
an omission on the part of the hon. member, who, in hia
opinion, should have concluded by calling on the house for
a specific expression of opinion on this matter. After some
observations, the noble lord concluded by a motion to the
effect that the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, in
the dismissal of Mr. Fox, and the occurrences relating
thereto, was not calculated to inspire confidence in the ad-
ministration of the pbor law in Ireland in the commis-
sioners.

Mr. SCULLY seconded the motion.

Mr. MAGUIRE deprecated the conduct of the commis-
sioners in reference to this subject, and said that as that
body had done all in their power to render themselves un-
popular, the Government should endeavour to reconstruct
them.

Colonel DICKSON condemned the conduct of the com•
missioners, and contended that Mr. Fox should be rein•
stated.

Sir G. GREY hoped the house would not agree to the
motion, which pronounced a wholesale condemnation of the
Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland, of whom he possessed
sufficient knowledge to be able to bear testimony to their
general conduct. lie regretted, however, that they had
made their report on this matter without having consulted
with Mr. Otway.
Mr. APCANE and Mr. E. JAMES supported the motion.
After a few words from Mr. LEFROY, the house divided—
For the motion of Lord Fermoy .... 49
Against ...
Majority
Mr. BUTT gave notice that on a future occasion he would
take the opinion of the house on this subject, unless in the
interval the Secretary for Ireland would take steps to have
justice done to the Rev. Mr. Fox, thereby administering a
rebuke ,to the Poor-law Commissioners.
Mr. CARDWELL said that it was his intention to
communicate with the Poor-law Commissioners, a course
which he considered necessary from what had taken
place.