The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-25 00:00:00

of his complaint, informed the proprietor of a newspaper in
Exeter, and who was one of the most respectable inhabitants
there, having been distinguished among his fellow-citizens as a
person recommended by the Commissioners, who disagreed
with him in politics, to the Secretary of State to dis-
charge the office of a Magistrate. That gentleman's
name was Mr. Woo!mer ; and he having considered
the case, gave it insertion in his paper. He the
itcllsegt
olatentisdabil
believe
Ipt
they
hos tiay tetewdhdieenrtgfeh that
coottiffeehaoreeuvdl
very
1:r
aaynnsogdtrpiirebtevepaoal
grievous
sler prepared
true,
and
easdneinsert
stt
(Bishop of Exeter) read the article, and it detailed most
fhgaonerriyewt:e'aooasurtistNaNr.rafi
nature
legal proceedingstakenreseere
wagainsterehitn.
instituted ltalt the in
r. Tanner
tisgaaitdiont hoe;
those
the Assistant Commissioner, and-that was important in con-
sidering his conduct. He for "one should not criticise the
conduct of private individuals in seeking to protect them-
selves from alleged misrepresentations, but when it was sought
to bring the vengeance of the law on individuals who calmly,
but strongly brought the fact before the public, it was hard
they should promote vindictive proceedings; and when the
I'oor-law Commissioners were invested by the Legislature with
powers that were oppressive, and whose proceedings it was
necessary for the good of the country should be anxiously
watched. In consequence of this, proceedings were taken in
the Court of Queen's Bench against Mr. Woolmer, for having
inserted that article in his newspaper.
The Earl of RADNOR—Who was the prosecutor?
The Bislthp of -EXETER—The guardiSFews but Mr. Tanner
the petitioner, stated-that he was infortned and believed that
it was the guradians, at the instigation of the Assiseant-Com-
misioner. 'they would recollect that he (the Bishop of
Exeter) was only quoting the averment of the petition. When
this case came before the Court of Queen's Bench, the de-
fendant prepared several affidavits to show—he had prepared
upwards of twenty affidavits—to show the truth of the alleged
statement, and that the facts which had been alleged had hap-
pened. But the attorney who had prepared the prosecution
made some unfortunate blunder. He said unfortunate, because
he believed that great mischief was the effect of it. He be-
lieved that if the case had been gone into then, their Lord-
ships would not have been troubled with the subject. An un •
fortuna'e blunder was committed by the parties who were em-
ployed in getting up the prosecution. There was a legal
mistake, and the counsel for the defence said it was perfectly
impossible that the case could go on, and insisted upon the
rule bf.ing dismissed. This was on the 16th of June, and in
the course of that month be believed a further commu-
nication took place on the part of Mr. Tanner with
the Commissioners in London; and also os the part
of Mr. Woolmer on the 2d of July. Mr. Woolmer took
that course which he would say was a striking proof
of the bearing of that gentleman's views. He addressed, the
Commissioners in this way, and their Lordships would recol-
lect this was a gentleman smarting under the recent inflic-
tion of a very gross prosecution against him in the Court of
Queen's Bench. This letter was dated July 6, 1840. (The
Right Rev. Prelate then read the letter, which stated the
writer's readiness to put the parties in possession of every in-
foimation, and enclosing the briefs delivered to counsel to-
gether with the sffidavits.) He begged to call the attention
of the House to the following paragraph :—" Of course it must
be understood that I forward the brief to you merely as a loan,
without prejudice to myself, my partner, or any other person.
I beg to implore you, for the sake of justice to the parties con-
cerned, to cause a fair and public investigation to be
made." This was arswered on the 7th of July by
a statement that the letter had been received, and that the sub-
ject should be attended to by the Commissioners. What fur-
ther communications took place he did not know, until the sth
of August, and on that day Mr. Gilbert addressed a letter to
Mr. Tanner, stating that he should sit in the Board-room of
the Cred.ton Union on the 14th of August to hear evidence."
" Solicitors or counsel will be allowed to attend to watch the
proceedings, and to suggest such questions as they thought proper
on the subject matter of the inquiry." Now nothing appeared
to be fairer than that. This gentleman chose to attend as his
own advocate ; and, on the 14th, immediately after Mr. Gilbert
had determined to summon Mr. Tanner, who was thus made a
complainant, and who was to advoca e the ease in person, im-
mediately bef re this inquiry Mr. Gilbert summoned this gen
tleman as a witness. Mr. Tanner was there, of course, and he
was required to submit than examination that lasted the whole
day, and a great part of the day fo losing ; and becatee
he made an affidavit for Mr. Woelmer in the Queen's Beneh,
he was made a witness, and his n.outh was shut.
Such conduct was most unaccountable. He hoped the Noble
Lord would be able to give some sort of answer. lie did not
say the Noble Lord would be unable to do so, but their Lord-
hips must admit that some sort of answer was req aired. Mr.
Tanner had made his affidavit solely for the purpose of show•
ing that Mr. Woolmer, in introducing the article alluded to
into his newspaper had been influenced by no hostile feeling,
hut that he had done so upon the representation of Mr. Tan-
ner, who knew nothing of the circumstances of the case from
Isis own knowledge, bur, having heard of the circumstances, he
had been induced to investigate the case, and had communi-
catedthe result of that investigation to Mr. Woalmer, Mr. Tan-
ner had been subjected to a most rigid examination and cross-
examination. On the second day it. had been arranged that on
meeting again :an advocate should appear for Mr. Tanner.
The inquiry was then adjourned, and on the 26th of August
Mr. Tanner received an intimation from Mr. Gilbert that the
inquiry would be resumed on the 27th. Mr. Tanner was asto-
nished-at receiving such an intimation, because it had been left
doubtful if the inquiry would be resumed; and he complained,
and justly, that he had not had longer notice given to him;
at the same time he handed in a list of witnesses to be exa-
mined, requesting that they might be called in the- order in
which their names stood on the list. On the day of the meet-
ine Mr. Tanner was surprised to find that Mr. Gilbert was
as-i,t.sd by another Learned Gentleman, Mr. Parker, also
an Assistant Poor-law Commissioner. In consequence of the
which had been previously come to with
Mr. Furlong, a respectable attorney of Exeter,
uliard.erGstiaibriedritn!
attended as the advocate of Mr. Tanner. When Mr. Furlong
attempted to act as Mr. Tanner's advocate, he was interrupted
by Mr. Parker, who said, " We want no advocates here ;" and
he refused to let that gentleman act. This course was con-
sidered very extraordinary, and excited the indignation of the
Chairman of the Board of Guardians, Mr. Buller, and a gentle-
man of equal worth and respectability with Mr. Buller, though
his name was not so well known—Mr. Sillifant, the Deputy
Chairman of the Board. They both expressed their strong
indignation at the coarse pursued. They told Mr. Tanner that
he ought to be heard by his advocate. But the matter did not
end there. When they saw that justice was refused, though
the complaint was made against the board of guardians, and
the course of the Commissioners seemed to be in their favour,
yet they would not accept it, but resigned their posts as Chair •
man and Deputy Chairman of the board. They considered
that justice was insulted, when a person coming to complain,
even though against themselves, was not permitted to take the
course that was always adopted. He did not mean that they
actually said this, but this was what they virtually said by their
act of resignation. Two days before this the boardof guardians
met and resolved, that the mode of conducting the inquiry
was wholly unusual; that public justice would not be satis-
fied with it, nor would the Board be able too maintain the cen-
fidence and respect of the public. . The guardians, therefore,
approved of the step taken by the Chairman and Vice-Chair-
man, and also resigned their seats. A long letter was then
sent down by the Poor-law Commissioners, defending the mode
of the inquiry, which was conducted in a private room, though
he should state that the reporters of the Exeter newspapers
were admitted. But neither the complainant, nor any person
on his behalf, were allowed to appear ; no person to examine
evidence, or direct how it should be taken, or any one ac-
quainted with the circumstances. In consequence of, this a
second resolution was passed, stating that the withdrawal of the
Assistant Commissioners from the public room was not rendered
necessary by the conduct of the persons present, and that the
only interruption arose from the refusal of the Assistant Com-
missioners to pursue the course of inquiry they had themselves
laid down at the commencement of the proceedings. The mas-
ter and surgeon of the workhouse were present, so were Mr.-
Parker and Mr. Gilbert. The witnesses were examined and cross-
examined, as it was stated, in a moat vexatious manner. At
any rate Noble Lords would see that the parties against
whom the complaints were made had the advantage
of cross-examining all the witnesses brought forward,
and on the other hand there was no power given to the com-
plainants to re-examine them. Nor was that all, the Court itself
did not know what they were examining about; the Commis-
sioners knew nothing of what the principal witnesses brought be-
fore them were brought to prove ; they heard something of
what they h.l to say, but that was a very small portion of the
charges. When the witnesses were rrueeeding to relate the
fact, in their own way, they were told that they should answer
certain questions put to them arid those only. There was no
doubt that the parties who instituted the complaint were treated
most harshly and unjustly, at the same time he (the Right Rev.
Prelate) should say be believed there was no intention to im-
peach the character of Mr. Gilbert or Mr. Parker—he believed
they were gentlemen of high respectability and irreproach-
pursued
were communicateda s as
he
w
abl,! character ; at the same time, whether they meant to
do so cr not, they acted most unfairly and harshly to-
wards those parties. But he must say even that was not all.
otuol d
the st
persons
show, an
with the attorney,
repeated protest. It was
outragenus violation of decency and fairness. The brief sub-
mitted by Mr. Woolmer to his Counsel, for his defence in the
The course which they
Queen's Bench, was obtained from his attorney, and the confi-
dential
remarkably
not surprising the inquiry terminated in in the acquittal of the
ad
scented,ne nd notwithstanding
itnoteshst
a contrary inn tdihnegt
ommtahrre.g margin
expressaTanner
n eagreements
accused. Be would show* tehd:i Iteoardships upon what
acquit r, hear.) One of
the physicians stated
au stove, which was in his
small, and contained a sin no , evidence they were
m. The
opi-
nion, sufficient to warm the roo
that the room
th r h temperature ought to
have been from 65 to 70.
not by
was called, who
stated that the room was warmed by a common fire-place,
but by a plate. He thought that plate would produce an in-
jurious heat ; there was an offensive smell in the room. Mr.
Tucker said that the room was calculated for persons in good
health, but this opinion was expressed in August or September.
t
He further stated it was only for one or two people. He
further thought that the ventilation was unsuited to an incle-
ment season. He thought h
t was totally unsuited for persons
Anoter surgeon was called, who cor-
suffering under desease.
Their Lordships roborated this testimony. must recollect that
this room was occupied by two persons in this state for several
days. In September last two eminent medical men were called
guardians in on the part of the _ depose to the St.
was Mr,
nets of the room. One. • Barnes, an eminent
said there was
surgeon This gentleman no offensive smell
when he was there, but that. the room was cheerless—and
could • •
cheerless was the best name that be given it. It was
kept sufficiently warm, and was well qualified for the purposes
wisely, an idiot ward. That it was
to which it was applied—n s in
very well adapted for such person a state of health, but it
persons, ,
was not at all suited for sick rsons cause if sick persons
were allowed to remain in it, it would become close and un-
wholesome. That was the testimony of the person called in
to prove the fitness of the place. Another physician, Dr.
Miller, gave a more favour
able opinion ; for he said he did not
d th
consider the rooms too small, an at the mode Of heating
them was not bad. The house-surgeon gave a more favour-
able opinion than either; but as
he was
not known in the
or so county, his testimony was not so valuable much to be relied
on. The inquiry was very
days, and when they came to a close many individuals were not
examined ; and he thought it very surprising_ that 23 wit-
nesses were notexamined at the investigation, He also thought
it matter of surprise that more Witnesses were examined
for the defence than for the complaint, as was stated
in the petition. On the 17th of October the Commissioners
made a report, in which they announced their decision, and
gave an entire acquittal to all the parties concerned. The 7

stated that they had examined the evidence of the inquiryat Cre-
diton, and they considered the treatment of the deceased pa-
tients could not be complained of, but that, on the contrary,
the care taken of them was highly creditable; and that the
master performed his difficult task of taking care of the pa-
tients with great satisfaction. The Commissioners concluded
their Report by stating that they would, if the guardians
wished, give the fullest publicity to the documents in the case.
The answer to that letter was that the Board felt that it
-would be desirable that the utmost public ty should be given
to the &tailed statements made by the Poor-law Commis-
AL in
Lordships
s
would no doubt be astonished at what he was now about to
Commis-
sioners. Subsequently a letter had been received from Mr.
Chadwick, stating that they had no objection to have the whole
tcheerrreespwoundeancegpooudblidsehaeld.tAhfotterwaull thsautrhrthisaiodgs
, theira idian
bring before them. Though the Commissioners sent these docu.
rsents to the boards of Guardians, and though they had expressed
a hope that the documents would be made public, yet still when
they came to the Board, it was at the express desire of the Board
of Commissioners in London, returned to them, and no copy
was permitted to be taken. While he fully acquitted the Com-
missioners of any intention to do injustice or behave with
cruelty, yet he thought that in their conduct there was that
which showed they were unfit to be trusted with that extent of
power which their Lordships and the other House of Parlia-
ment had given them. lie was not surprised at the prayer
with which this gentleman concluded ; he prayed them to take
the subject into their grave consideration, or that they would
select such portions of the case as they might deem requisite
for inquiry ; or if they did not think fit to make any inquiry,
then that, unless these facts were answered, their Lordships
would net concur in any Act of Parliament which should con-
tinue uncontrolled the unprecedented power of the Poor-law
Commissioners. lie moved that the petition be laid on the
table.

Lord WHA RNCLIFFE was sure their Lordships would
give the Government credit for not wishing to defend any
case unless they thought it was a really defensible case, and
that the case attempted to be made out against them had
failed. In almost all these cases there were some parties more
or lass worthy of blame, and he was far from saying that in
the present cane he did not see things which ought not to
have occurred, and as he proceeded he should not spare those
whom he thought worthy of censure. The Poor-law Com-
missioners were called upon to perform a most arduous and a
most disagreeable duty, and it behoved their Lordships to be
cautious how they thsew on gentlemen so situated a degree of
blame which they did not deserve. In all cases of this nature
the first thing to be considered was the circumstances under
which the accusation had been made, and secondly, the con-
duct of those who brought. forward the accusation. They ought
to come into Court" with clean hands ; there should be no
evidence of anything like a contrivance, or of any-
thing like an attempt to get up a case; no cir-
cumstances to show that the case had been got up by the
accuser for the mere purpose of making himself notorio,us, and
of advancing himself in his profession. Now, it did appear to
him, on looking at the history of this case, that the great ob-
ject of Mr. 'fanner throughout the case had been to acquire
notoriety for himself, and probably to derive from it the means
of assi ling himself in his profession. In the first place, the
transaction itself, of whatever character it might be, occurred
two sears ags, and two inquiries had taken place, which ended
us Augu,t or September, 1840, yet this was the first
time anything had been said about it in either
House of Parliament. The House of Commons was open
to Mr. Tanner, and there were Noble Lords who would have
brought the case for him before this House. But he never
availed himself of these opportunities until now, when he saw
that a new Poor-law Bill was about to be enacted. However,
it could not be denied that it might be very reasonable for him
to take these means of showing the Hose they ought to be
cautious in giving such powers to any Commissioners again.
But, at all events, he had slept on this case since 1840. The
first inquiry took place on the 30th of April in that year. On
the 2d of May, Mr. Tanner wrote to the Chairman. It hap-
pened that he was not at the Board on that day, and it was not
surprising that the guardians did not think it right to take,any
notice of the letter until he should be present. It might, per-
haps, have been better if they had acknowledged the receipt of
the letter. But, at all events, Mr. Tanner knew that the
Chairman to whom his letter was addressed was not present,
and he might reasonably expect an answer after the next meet-
ing. 21e wrote this letter en the 2d, and on the bth he wrote
to the Commissioners. Now, he did not get an answer from
them until the 9th. But, upon the Bth, the letter which ap-
p.,are(l on the 9th in the Exeter paper must have been com-
municated to the editor. That was the letter upon which the
trim,, al information was laid, and there was little
doubt f',at it was written by Mr. Tanner himself.
In the letter addressed to the Commissioners, this gentleman
did not state one, even one, material fact with reference to the
case. It was true, he said those poor men died, but he neve:
st :ted what they were, or how they died. One of them was, in
point of fact, an idiot, and the other was a poor man, subject
to epileptic fits. Ile said the place they were kept in was an
impra,ear place : the medical persons connected with the in-
stitution said that these poor men were kept in a ward which
was appropriated to lunatics. New he (Lord Wharncliffe)
thought that such conduct on the part of this gentleman was
inflammatory in the extreme. The newspaper represented the
pace in which these paupers were kept as a filthy place, with-
out windows, and that it was unfit to be inhabited. On look-
ing at the evidence of the medical gentleman there was no
such thing stated ; on the contrary, the medical men said that
the place was well ventilated and warm. Now, suppose this
were stated to the Commissioners, and that they, on sending
down their Assistant-Commissioner, found that the place
was quite different from what it was represented to be,
it would not be necessary to subject the parties to
an inquiry into the matter. It was, however, ascertained, that
instead of the place being filthy and empty, there was straw
for bedding, and ample means for ventilation. In fact the de-
scription of the place was totally different from that which was
The Poor-law Guardians were not given in the newspapers.
satisfied with Mr. Gilbert, and they were determined to insti-
tute a criminal prosecution against the newspapers for a libel.
Acc.srdingly, they moved for a rule in the Court of Queen's
Bench. They obtained liberty to file a criminal information.
They did so, and the Editor employed Mr. Tanner to defend
it. They came into the Court of Queen's Bench, and the very
first thing done was to take a technical objection, which upset
the whole proceedings. Mr. Tanner had, of course, instructed
his counsel to raise that objection, and the result was it pre-
vented that public inquiry which he affected to desire. Mr.
Tanner must have given directions in this case, because no
counsel would have acted without it. It appeared that Mr.
Woolmer consented to deliver up to the Commissioners his
briefs, as stated by the Rev. Prelate. These briefs were accom-
panied by the affidavit which Mr. Tanner had prepared for
showing cause against the rule in the Queen's Bench. The
moment they received the briefs and affidavits they felt it
their duty to make further inquiry into the matter, and again
sent down their Assistant Commissioner to make that inquiry.
They were now arrived at the case—the question of these in-
quiries. A great deal had been s tid upon this subject, and
with perfect truth, that these inquiries, from the nature of
the thing, could not be impartial. However that might be,
the Act of Parliament gave power to the Commissioners to make
inquiries and swear witnesses, and he apprehended that it was
sufficient if the Commissioners believed that an offence
had been committed, and they had thesanction of the Govern-
ment that it would be their duty to institute a prosecution. But
the inquiry the Commissioners had to make was an inquiry for
a special purpose, of obtaining information, and not for the
purpose of convicting individuals of crime. Now, it was very
true it would be much better if those inquiries could be con-
ducted before a jury, as it would be the more satisfactory.
He hoped that when the Bill came before that House
some means might be devised that would give the
Commissioners power to have a real, substantial, and impar-
tial inquiry whenever it was called for. But, as had been
said by the Right Rev. Prelate, it was improper in Mr. Gil-
beet in calling upon Mr. Tanner to give evidence upon the
ground of his having introduced certain affidavits in the Court
of Queen's Bench. If Mr. Tanner had wished to conduct the
case, and produce witnesses for examination, it would have
been proper for him to have said they had prevented him, by
making him a witness, and he would have had just cause of
complaint against the Commissioners. It had been deter-
mined that counsel and attorney should he admitted on both
sides, and that the investigation should be conducted in such a
manner as to he satisfactory to the public. Now two statements
had been made with respect to that investigation. Mr. Tanner
first said that his advocate would not be
_permitted to speak,
whilst the Commissioners represented Mr. Tanner to have
used very strong expres.ions. There was no place where a
man was called upon to show more patience, and absence of
any ebulition of temper, than when sitting upon the bench of
Justice. Now he held that the language used had been rash,
to use the mildest expression. The Guardians, like honest
men, who were conscious of their innocence, wished to have a
fair investigation, in order that any imputations which
could be cast upon them might be removed. In his
opinion, and contrary to the opirion of the Commis-
sioners, he wasfree to confess that the expression of opinion on
the part of the guardians ought to have induced the Assistant-
Commissioners to revise their opinion, and satisfy the public by
continuing the inquiry, no matter what abuse they received
from Mr. Tanner. The Right Rev. Prelate had stated a part,
and only a part, of the evidence of the medical persons. And
in the first place, the averment in the paper that the persons
died of want of proper treatment, was not true. It was said
the place was not warm, but the medical evidence proved that
there was a means of warming it, and it was clear that it could
be made sufficiently warm. They spoke of the impurity of the
place and the smell, but it was not surprising that when the
friends of the patients went to see them they found the air im.
pure, and a not very agreeable smell. He had no doubt at the
time the air was impure, but the evidence showed that the per. were not ill, and the air was not impure. They spoke of the
non-pavement; of the ceiling, and cold, but the evidence showed
that the place was such as was used for persons in their state,
and in point of fact pains were taken to make it so. He con-
fessed from the manner in which Mr. Tanner spoke in his pe-
tition be was induced not to attach much credit to it. The
Right Rev. Prelate had stated that they promised to publish
this, and that after all they would not allow it. Now, that
struck him at the moment as a most curious circumstance, and
since the Right Reverend Prelate had made the statement
he had inquired into the subject, and found that
the Commissioners wished it to be published, and that
for that purpose they sent it to the guardians
but they refused to publish it. Another point which was
stated in the petition, but which the Right Rev. Prelate did
not refer to, was an assertion that the witnesses for the charge
and against it were paid in different ratios. Now that was not
the fact—all that had been clone was to adopt the course that
was constantly pursued in Courts of Justice ; the witnesses
were paid according to their station in life. Now such an ac-
cusation as that was calculated to taint the petition, and his
firm belief was that the petition was got up by Mr. Tanner,
while he stated that he felt bound to admit that there were
several things done by the Commissioners which he could
not sanction.
Lord CAMBPELL did not intend to go into the merits of
the question. His intention in rising was to give their Lord-
ships some information which might be useful to the forming
an opinion as to one part of the case. In his petition, Mr. Tan •
net stated that he had had no opportunity of bringing the case
forward in the Court of Queen's Bench. Now he (Lord Camp-
bell) could assure their Lordships that Mr. Tanner had had
ample opportunities of bringing the case under the cogniz-
ance of the Court of Queen's Bench. The petition stated that
the prosecutors had either intentionally, or unintentionally,
made a flaw in the proceedings, thereby clearly intimating
that the flaw had been purposely introduced by the prosecutor,
for the purpose of • preventing investigation. Now he (Lord
Campbell) could assure their Lordships, that there was not the
slightest foundation for such an insinuation. The rule had