The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-29 00:00:00

THE CHAPLAIN OF ST. PANCRAS
WORKHOUSE.

Yesterday a meeting of the directors and guar-
dians of the poor of St. Pancras was held at the
Court-house, Camden-town, for the purpose of re-
ceiving the report of a committee appointed to draw
up a statement of the facts which led to the dis-
missal of the Rev. Thomas Pugh from his office of
chaplain to the workhouse.
Mr. Churchwarden Cameron having been called
to the chair,
Mr. Plaw, the clerk to the board, read the report.
It stated that the true statement of the recent
painful events which led to the dismissal of the
chaplain were the following:—" On Tuesday, the
7th of December, Mr. Wyatt, as chairman of the
Officers' Duties Committee ' specially summoned it
together to report that on the preceding day it had
conic to his knowledge that the chaplain had, on
the previous Saturday, visited Mr. Muskett, a fugi-
tive from justice, and that after consulting Mr.
Humphreys, jun., solicitor, he sent for the rev.
gentleman, in the presence of Mr. Humphreys
requested to be furnished with Muskett's address;
to which Mr. Pugh replied, Ido not know it.' On
being told that the answer was not satisfactory, as
it was well understood that he did know it, he said,
You cannot know that ; you are only guessing it.'
On being further pressed he admitted that he did
know it, but declined to give the information. He
was cautioned of the impropriety of aiding a criminal
to escape from justice ; that such conduct might
possibly lead to his own dismissal. Mr. Wyatt
begged the chaplain to reconsider the matter. About
two hours later Mr. Pugh called on Mr. Wyatt, and
stated he had seen Mr. Dale, the vicar, who quite
approved of his determination to withhold the
required information, it being a privileged commu-
nication, received as a 'confession' betweenminister
and layman, and Mr. Pugh further suggested a
reference to the bishop. On this latter point Mr.
Wyatt reported that he very carefully pointed out to
Mr. Pugh that he did not ask him to reveal one
word of what had passed, but simply that lie should
name the place where he himself had been to as
this fact could not be deemed any part of the com-
munication made in confession. On being sent for
by the Officers' Duties Committee, Mr. Pugh
declined to furnish them with Muskett's address,
on the ground of its being a privileged communi-
cation. He was duly cautioned as to the conse-
quences t) him, and it is distinctly affirmed by
the Officers' Duties Committee that, while before
them, Mr. Pugh never gave the slightest intima-
tion that he had pledged his word to a third party
not to reveal the address, but founded his refusal

simply on the privileged character of the commu-
nication between and himself. The committee
reported the same day to the Board of
Directors, before which Mr. Pugh was called and
interrogated. He was asked what he meant by
saying he did not know Muskett's address. He
denied at first ever having done so ; but, on Mr.
Humphreys fully corroborating Mr. Wyatt's state-
ment, Mr. Pugh admitted it, and replied, that it
was a long address, and he could not remember it
without referring, and, further, that he wished to
evade the question. He still refused to give up the
address, on the grounds already stated; but, just
before leaving the room, in reply to a question put
by a director, he stated that, before receiving the
address, he had given Mr. Muskett's solicitor a
solemn promise not to divulge it, thereby putting
the matter in an entirely different light." After
referring to the resolution sent up to the vestry,
recommending his removal from the office, the Com-
mittee stated " that they were satisfied •that the
chaplain's evasive and unsatisfactory conduct before
the board mainly produced this result, and not his
refusal to reveal the address. Even had h. stated
the entire truth in the first instance the committee
had no doubt but the board would have considered
him very blameable, in consenting to receive the
address of an officer suspected to be guilty of a
serious crime, under the promise to maintain the
same inviolate." The report next gives the resolu-
tions of the vestry for the dismissal of the chaplain
and those adopted last week, and remarks that
" the subject had been much discussed in the public
press ; and in some cases, from a want of knowledge
of the real facts, the conduct of the directors had
been severely animadverted upon. It also appeared
difficult to credit that the bishop, the archdeacon,
and the vicar could have had the whole truth before
them when they gave the unqualified approval of 1
the conduct of the chaplain, as stated in the motion
of Mr. Young. The committee recommended that
a copy of this report should be forwarded to the
vicar with a positive assurance from the board
that they never pressed Mr. Pugh to reveal
the address after he had informed them
that he had pledged his word to a third
party to keep it secret, and that his dismissal
was mainly caused by his own evasive and
unsatisfactory conduct before the board, which
rendered it impossible for them to recommend
his restoration to the office of chaplain to the work-
house, and that the vicar be requested to communi-
cate these facts to the vicar and archdeacon."
Mr. WYATT moved the 'Adoption of the report,
and that a copy be sent to the vicar, with a request
that he would lay the same before the Archdeacon
of Middlesex and the Bishop of London. He con-
tended that this statement was a faithful exposition
of the whole of the painful affair. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. STOCKTON seconded the motion, bearing his