MR. HEADLAMsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will state the reason why, in the case of the Report of the Commissioners concerning the Borough of Bridgwater, the usual practice has been departed from of giving references to the evidence in the margin opposite to every important finding or allegation; and whether, if it be alleged that such omission is accidental, he will take care that the omission is rectified, so that persons implicated by the Report, and any person desirous of testing the truth of the allegations, may be able to ascertain the evidence on which they are made; and, whether he will also state what was the First Report of the said Commissioners, and why the same has not been laid before the House?
MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that there had been a departure in the Bridgwater Report from the general but not uniform practice of giving references in the margin. That course had not been followed in the cases of the Reports of the Commissioners at Totnes, Wakefield, Canterbury, and one or two other places; but he was bound to say that the course indicated by his right hon. Friend was the more convenient one, and he regretted that it had not been followed in the case of Bridgwater. With regard to amending the Report, in this respect it was a mere question of expense. It would take a good deal of time and lead to considerable expense, and before he answered the Question he should like to inquire what the cost would be. With regard to the first Report, it was presented on the 6th of November, 1869, and was consequently incorporated in the second Report since published. The first Report, however, had been printed as a separate paper, and was nearly ready for distribution.