§ MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department whether the information was correct, that three Gentlemen had been appointed as Commissioners to inquire into the charges preferred as to the mismanagement of the prison at Milbank; and if it were true that the Commission for that purpose did not include the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe)? In asking this question, he wished to observe that, if the right hon. Gentleman had excluded the name of that hon. Gentleman from the Commission, the inquiry would not be satisfactory to the public. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the appointment of such a Commission; for however respectable might be the names of those nominated, they would not be able to satisfy the public if the hon. Member for Finsbury were excluded.
§ SIR G. GREYreplied, that it was quite true that a Commission had been prepared, and that it was confined to the names of three Gentlemen who had undertaken to perform the duties entrusted to them. The inquiry was to be directed into the conduct 712 of the governor, and of other persons connected with the prison. His object was to select Gentlemen who would come to the inquiry with unprejudiced minds. It certainly never occurred to him to include in that Commission the name of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duncombe), for that hon. Gentleman had come forward to make charges against the persons connected with the prison, and to prefer statements, to the truth of which he had pledged himself. He did not think it would be right to ask the hon. Member to be one of the Commissioners; and if he had asked, he was sure the hon. Gentleman, under such circumstances, would have declined serving. The fullest opportunity would be given to the hon. Gentleman, who was the aecuser in this case, of substantiating his charges; but the three Gentlemen who were appointed were to act as a jury; they were to be the judges. It was in no invidious sense, then, he excluded the hon. Gentleman, who had pledged himself to the truth of the statements he had made; but it would not do to have a judge pledged to decide that to be true which he had preferred as an accuser. The names of those who had been selected as Commissioners were the Earl of Chichester, Lord Seymour, and Mr. Bickham Escott.
§ MR. WAKLEYasked whether the Home Secretary would, together with the names of the Commissioners, furnish a copy of the instructions given to them. He concurred with the hon. Member for Coventry that it would be next to impossible that the Commission would give satisfaction to the public unless his hon. Colleague was one of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman said that these Commissioners were to act as judges; but he did not understand that persons so appointed were deemed to be judges, their duty being to report to that House for its information. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had broached a new doctrine. He placed great confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, having taken a phrenological survey of his head. Generally speaking, when Gentlemen were appointed to important offices he made such survey, and he did not know that he had ever been more satisfied than with the right hon. Gentleman's head. His impression was, that the right hon. Gentleman had a very benevolent disposition, and he should be disappointed if the right hon. Gentleman did not prove that he had a strong love of justice. The right hon. 713 Gentleman said that his (Mr. Wakley's) hon. Colleague (Mr. T. Duncombe) appeared as an accuser. Now, he thought that that was a dangerous doctrine. He took it that an hon. Gentleman presenting a petition relative to abuses in a public institution could not be considered as an accuser; and he hoped such a doctrine would not be repeated. It was his hon. Colleague's bounden duty to present the petition, it being respectfully worded. He had been the first to notice the abuses in the Andover Union, and yet he was placed on the Committee of Inquiry. So it was with the hon. Member for Weymouth, who had brought forward the cases of Mr. Parker and of Mr. Day. It looked like casting an imputation (though he was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean it) on an individual to exclude him from an official investigation because he had presented a petition connected with it. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the constitution of the Commission, and not object to placing his hon. Colleague on it.
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that when the Commission received Her Majesty's sanction, he should not object to lay the instructions on the Table. He did not think that the analogy attempted to be drawn between a Commission of this kind and a Parliamentary Committee was good. When a Member brought forward a petition containing charges against a public department, it was customary to place such Member on the Committee of Inquiry, and there were also Members nominated who were supposed to take a different view of the case in favour of the public department. The Government, in selecting the Members of the Commission, had chosen men whose ability, and character, and impartiality, were likely to carry weight. When he called them judges, he did not mean that they were to decide on the case, but that they must be judges to a certain extent of the effect of the evidence and of the manner in which the witnesses gave their testimony.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEfelt personally indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for not asking him to perform the duty of one of the Commissioners, because, if he had done so, he should have accepted it, as he should have felt bound to continue this inquiry in the most stringent manner. This was a task which he preferred not having imposed upon him; but now, as to the right hon. Gentleman reconsidering the matter, he said, that after what had oc- 714 curred, nothing would induce him to form one of the members of the Commission. As to the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, that a Member of Parliament presenting a petition to the House, was to be considered as the accuser of a great establishment, he begged to protest against it, and to repudiate it. What had he done that he should be called an accuser? He was no more an accuser than the right hon. Gentleman himself; no more than the House itself was an accuser. In presenting a petition, he had stated that the allegations contained in it were true; because, before presenting it, he had taken pains to ascertain their truth. He did not think it right to present a petition containing such allegations unless he were convinced of its truth; and he now said that he believed its allegations to be true, and the counter statement of the governor and the other prison authorities to be false. And having presented a petition containing such allegations, it was said that he was now to appear before the Commissioners as a public prosecutor. That was a new office for a Member of Parliament. Why, he had stipulated that Mr. Barker was to appear in that capacity; but this he said that if it appeared to him that truth could not be otherwise ascertained, if it could be reached but in his presence, then in that case he would go before the Commissioners. Still he thought it was not the situation in which a Member of Parliament ought to be placed, who only did his duty in presenting a petition confided to his care.
§ SIR G. GREYexplained that he had not used the word "accuser" in any invidious sense, or as meaning to convey that the hon. Gentleman had done anything more than what was his duty to do as a Member of Parliament. He used the word as signifying that the hon. Member had, independent of the petition of Mr. Barker, stated that he himself was prepared to substantiate charges against the officers of the prison.
§ Subject at an end.