HC Deb 03 February 1847 vol 89 cc767-9
MR. M. GORE

moved— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Report made to Her Majesty by Mr. Escott, a Member of this House, on the state of Millbank Prison.

SIR G. GREY

said, that a Report from the Commissioners had been received, and presented to the House. It was a joint commission, and required a joint report. It bore the signatures of two of the Commissioners, the hon. Member for Winchester having declined to attach his name. That hon. Gentleman, however, had signified his wish to make a separate report; but he (Sir G. Grey) had intimated to the hon. Gentleman, that the usual course under such circumstances, was to embody his sentiments in a letter addressed to the Secretary of State, in which shape it would be presented to the House. Mr. Escott, however, had sent in a report addressed to the Crown; but it had been returned to him, the document not being in the shape in which it could be presented to the House.

MR. B. ESCOTT

said, that it was disagreeable to him to press a Motion which was contrary to the views of the right hon. Gentleman; but certainly his views of what was right were entirely different from the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman. It was true that the commission consisted of three persons who were commanded by Her Majesty to report upon the subject submitted to their consideration. Two of these Commissioners, he understood, had presented a report, but for himself he had not done so. He did not agree in the opinions of his two Colleagues; and since their report had been made, he thought it his duty to report also. He had been told, however, by the right hon. Gentleman, that if he would state his opinions in a letter, it would be reported to the House. It appeared to him to be immaterial in what shape his opinions were presented; but he thought that when Gentlemen were commanded by a Royal Commission to inquire into certain grave matters, it was absolutely necessary that the command should be fulfilled, and in such a case something more than a mere matter of form was involved. He had no doubt that his two Colleagues had conscientiously discharged their duty in making the report which they had made; but he also considered it to be his duty to make a report too. As to form, however, he did not think that his two Colleagues had adhered to it themselves, and it was, therefore, the more imperative upon him to make a report in the proper form.

SIR G. GREY

said, that Mr. Escott seemed still to misunderstand him. He did not wish him to alter one word of his report; all that he wished was that the report, instead of being addressed to Her Majesty, and signed under his (Mr. Escott's) hand and seal, should be addressed in the form of a letter to the Secretary of State. He understood that the delay which had occurred in sending in the report, had arisen from the hon. Member for Winchester having declined to sign it.

MR. ESCOTT

differed from the report of the other Commissioners, and had no choice but to make a separate report.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

thought the question whether the hon. Member should write a letter or make a report was immaterial, so that the House was put in possession of the matter. In point of form, however, he thought that the hon. Member for Winchester was right, for it was according to precedent, to the ordinary practice, and to the commands of Her Majesty, that a report should be made. The commission stated that the Commissioners were "to report severally under their hands and seal;" and he did think the hon. Member for Winchester was at liberty to report separately if he thought proper. Moreover, there was appended to the report of the other two Commissioners a statement that their Colleague preferred making a separate report—an announcement which evidently, by inferring that another report was coming, kept the matter open. When the Municipal Commissioners sat, Sir Francis Palgrave sent in a separate report, to which no objection was made; and he therefore did not see why one should not be received in this case. For his own part, he thought there ought to be another commission; and he felt certain that the right hon. Baronet, had he read the evidence, would be of the same opinion. He thought that the hon. Member's conclusions on the evidence would come much better in the shape of a report than in a letter.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, the first part of the commission gave powers to the Com- missioners, or to two of them, to do certain things; and therefore, unless there were two of them together, they could not act. All their proceedings, supposing them to have sat in three separate chambers, would be illegal. A unity of action was essential. The next clauses, however, ordering the Commissioners to report, left them at liberty to report either together or separately.

MR. FOX MAULE

thought the discussion a waste of time, as not the slightest alteration in the hon. Gentleman's report was required, except to make it into a letter. A report signed by two Commissioners, they constituting a majority, was, in fact, the report of the whole commission, He did not recollect the case referred to by the hon. Member for Finsbury; but he did remember that one of the commission appointed in reference to the condition of the poor in Scotland did not agree with his Colleagues; and at the end of the report his objections were appended under the heading, "Dissent for the following reasons." The hon. Member for Winchester, he submitted, ought to have taken a similar course.

Motion withdrawn.