§ VISCOUNT COURTENAYmoved, pursuant to notice, that the Andover Union Committee have power from time to time to report its proceedings to the House.
§ SIR J. GRAHAMwished to hear from the noble Lord some explanation respecting this Motion. He understood that the first time the Motion for printing the evidence was made in Committee, and at a full meeting it was rejected by a majority of six to four. [An hon. MEMBER: No, by the casting vote of the Chairman.] 1410 Then it was lost by the casting vote of the Chairman; but in two or three days after the rejection of this Motion, it was again brought forward and carried by a small majority, and against the opinion of the noble Lord, who was in the chair. Now, he thought some Parliamentary reason should be assigned why the evidence in this particular case should be reported from time to time. It was an unusual request, and the House had reason to look for an explanation.
§ VISCOUNT COURTENAYobserved, that the right hon. Baronet was quite correct in stating that the question was before the Committee on two occasions; that on the first occasion the numbers for and against the Motion were equal; and it was rejected by his casting vote. On the second occasion the numbers were six to four in favour of printing the evidence. He still retained his opinion, that in the circumstances of the case it was not expedient that such a Motion should be carried. At the same time, he was bound to state that the Committee was sitting with open doors, that the public were allowed to come in, and that reports of the proceedings of the Committee found their way to the public. Those reports were of course not in an authentic shape, and were often inaccurate, and there could be no doubt that an authentic account of the proceedings, coming from the Committee itself, would be the means of furnishing correct information both to the House and the public. He must, however, state, that he had made this Motion as the organ of the Committee, and not on his own responsibility.
§ MR. WAKLEYsaid, that when the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) said that a Parliamentary reason ought to be given for this Motion, the House would remember that there was the same reason for it that there had been in the case of the Committee which sat in 1836 and 1837 on the administration of the Poor Law. The right hon. Baronet was a Member of that Committee, he believed; and he was sure that the right hon. Baronet would recollect that after every sitting of the Committee the evidence had been reported to the House by Mr. Fazakerly, the Chairman of the Committee. He was sure that would be in the recollection of hon. Members, and, that being the case, he considered that it was for the right hon. Baronet to show why the precedent established on that occasion should be departed from on this. It was for the House 1411 to determine whether the evidence should be reported from day to day or not; but he trusted they would accede to the Motion, for if they did not, and if the evidence were printed all at once in a body, it was his conviction that it never would be read by the public. For himself, he hoped he should be acquitted of having acted unfairly in the course he had taken in the Committee. It had not been his object, in bringing forward a second time the Resolution for reporting the evidence from day to day, to take the Committee by surprise. He had been beaten on the first occasion by the casting vote of the Chairman, and he had then given notice that he should repeat the Motion at the next sitting of the Committee. The Committee, therefore, had the most ample notice of what was coming on. Considering the public importance of the questions involved in this evidence, he trusted that the House would agree to the Motion.
§ MR. BOUVERIE,thought that this being a case in which an investigation was going on most intimately connected with the interests of private individuals, if the evidence were reported from time to time, they would only be giving to the world one-sided statements, which might be contradicted by subsequent evidence, but in the mean time might do much injury to the parties concerned. He must say that he did think it a hardship on the parties mentioned in the evidence that there should be parties in the Committee-room taking notes for the purpose of publishing the evidence; and he did think that it was worthy the consideration of the Committee whether they should not prevent any notes being taken; he believed that they had the power to do so, and he thought that justice to the parties demanded it.
§ SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. Wakley) had referred to the precedent of 1836 and 1837. Now, he (Sir J. Graham) had an indistinct recollection of what had occurred on that Committee, but, if he remembered rightly, he opposed in the Committee the Motion for reporting to the House from day to day; and the Motion which it was now sought to obtain the assent of the House to was the first Motion of the kind since that precedent had been established. Undoubtedly the Committee might either exclude strangers, or if, admitting strangers, they found any of them taking notes of the proceedings for the purpose of publication, there could not be a doubt that such a publication 1412 would be a breach of the privileges of the House. The Committee might bring such publication before the House, and he had not a doubt that it would be considered to be a breach of privilege. It was quite true that the Motion was in form only to report the evidence from day to day to the House; but he presumed the object was to follow that up, if it were carried, by the ulterior Motion that the evidence so reported be printed. To that he should be decidedly opposed, considering such a proceeding to be quite opposed to justice and fairness to the parties concerned in this investigation.
§ MR. ETWALLdid not see any objection to the publication, in an abbreviated form, of the facts as they came before the Committee. This was a public Committee; the public were admitted by the Committee to hear the evidence, and, that being the case, he could not conceive what harm could arise from the publication of it in print. He thought it would be much better for the persons against whom charges might be made in the course of the evidence to have those charges appear in print in an authentic form.
§ CAPTAIN PECHELLbore witness to the extreme approbation which the noble Lord opposite had earned from the Committee, and every Member of it, by his conduct as Chairman. He did not believe that any Member of the Committee would put in exercise either of the two powers which the right hon. Baronet had so kindly reminded them that they were invested with; he believed they would neither exclude the public nor seek to treat the publication of the evidence as a breach of privilege. He trusted the House would support the views of the Committee.
§ MR. PAKINGTONsaid, that perfect harmony had prevailed in the Committee, much of which he thought was attributable to the courtesy and good judgment with which the noble Lord had conducted himself in the chair. He (Mr. Pakington) had voted on both divisions against reporting to the House from day to day, on the ground that it was not for the public good that evidence so deeply affecting the parties mentioned in it should be published until the whole of it could be presented to the House. It would be the much better course for the Committee to put an end to the partial publication of their proceedings. He was bound to state that he entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet, and should vote against the Motion.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEhad voted in the 1413 Committee, on the first division, against the evidence being reported from day to day. He should have done the same on the second division, if he had not been accidentally absent at the moment the division occurred. There might be garbled reports of the evidence given to the public by persons who attended the Committee-room to take notes of what occurred; but those persons did so at their own peril. The House had nothing to do with that; but they ought to recollect that much of this evidence—and very loose it was—consisted of criminations and recriminations of individuals, and was connected with nothing but mere local squabbles in the town of Andover. He would venture to say the public cared nothing about it. They had heard of parish meetings, in which it had been said of one of the speakers that the eyes of all Europe were on that man; and, perhaps, it might be that the people of Andover thought that all Europe was longing for this evidence. The House had lately legalized their own publication of libellous matter; and he would say that there was a great chance of libellous matter being brought out in the evidence before this Committee, which, if this Motion were carried, would be printed from day to day, and go forth to the world. Now, the evidence was chiefly ex parte so far as it had gone, and he said therefore that it would not be fair or just to the parties concerned to publish it. The newspapers published it at their peril, and the parties libelled had a remedy against them; but if the House published these libels, the parties would have no remedy. One witness had stated to the Committee that seven or eight other witnesses were all perjured, and persons of bad character. If the newspapers put that in print, the parties designated would have an action of libel against them, but if the House published that statement, the parties would have no redress. The precedent of the Committee of 1836 and 1837 had, he maintained, no analogy to the present occasion. That was an inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law throughout the country and into its general operation; it was not an investigation of local charges against individuals. He thought it would be unjust and unfair to pass this Motion.
§ LORD COURTENAY,as the organ of the Committee, did not feel justified in doing otherwise than taking the sense of the House on the Motion which he had been ordered to make as Chairman.
§ House divided — Ayes 16; Noes 81 Majority 65.
| List of the.AYES. | |
| Archbold, R. | Morris, D. |
| Armstrong, Sir A. | Pechell, Capt. |
| Bagge, W. | Plumridge, Capt. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Sheridan, R. B. |
| Collett, J. | Somers, J. P. |
| Dawson, hon. T. V. | Stanley, hon. W. O. |
| Duke, Sir J. | |
| Hamilton, Lord C. | TELLERS. |
| Hill, Lord M. | Etwall, R. |
| Hume, J. | Wakley, T. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Baillie, H. J. | Houldsworth, T. |
| Baine, W. | Howard, hon. C. W. G. |
| Bernal, R. | James, W. |
| Bouverie, hon. E. P. | Jocelyn, Visct. |
| Bowles, Adm. | Kelly, Sir F. R. |
| Bramston, T. W. | Kemble, H. |
| Brotherton, J. | Lincoln, Earl of |
| Brownrigg, J. S. | Lindsay, hon. Capt. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Lygon, hon. Gen. |
| Cardwell, E. | Mackinnon, W. A. |
| Carew, W. H. P. | Mangles, R. D. |
| Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. | Milnes, R. M. |
| Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. | Mitchell, T. A. |
| Colebrooke, Sir T. E. | Morgan, O. |
| Collett, W. R. | Northland, Visct. |
| Craig, W. G. | O'Brien, A. S. |
| Davies, D. A. S. | O'Connell, M. J. |
| Denison, E. B. | Pattison, J. |
| Dennistoun, J. | Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. |
| Dickinson, F. H. | Pennant, hon. Col. |
| Divett, E. | Philips, G. R. |
| Douglas, Sir C. E. | Phillpots, J. |
| Drummond, H. H. | Plumptre, J. P. |
| Duncan, G. | Richards, R. |
| Duncombe, hon. O. | Round, C. G. |
| Dundas, D. | Smith, B. |
| Egerton, W. T. | Smith, rt. hn. R. V. |
| Elphinstone, Sir H. | Smythe, hon. G. |
| Feilden, W. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Fuller, A. E. | Spooner, R. |
| Goulburn, rt. hon. H. | Trollope, Sir J. |
| Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. | Trotter, J. |
| Greene, T. | Turner, E. |
| Hamilton, G. A. | Vane, Lord H. |
| Hamilton, W. J. | Vesey, hon. T. |
| Hastie, A. | Waddington, H. S. |
| Hawes, B. | Wood, Col. T. |
| Hayes, Sir E. | Wrightson, W. |
| Henley, J. W. | Young, J. |
| Hodgson, R. | TELLERS. |
| Hope, Sir J. | Duncombe, T. |
| Hope, G. W. | Pakington, J. S. |