QUESTION. (Hansard, 20 May 1873)

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE,

in reply, said, the Question of the hon. Baronet referred to a subject which was not directly within the competence of the President of the Board of Trade to deal with, but which had been properly left to the discretion of the Commission, in which the Government and the House might place the utmost confidence. He had, however, communicated with the Chairman of the Commission (the Duke of Somerset), and had received from him a letter, which he would read to the House. The Duke said— It appears that objection has been taken to the course pursued by the Commission in excluding the public and the reporters from our room while we admit Mr. Plimsoll or his solicitor. The Committee were desirous to give Mr. Plimsoll full opportunity to make out his case and to bring before them such evidence as he could collect. On the other hand, the Commissioners decided that where the conduct of any shipowner was impugned he should at once be written to, and have a Copy of the Evidence, so far as it concerned him, forwarded to him. Inasmuch, however, as some statements might be made indirectly affecting the character of shipowners, the Commissioners have decided to communicate with the Associated Shipowners, asking them to appoint a solicitor or other person in whom they have confidence, who might watch the evidence from day to day and prepare any witnesses for a reply. My belief is that in. this inquiry, where exciting assertions will occasionally be made, and where dull technical details must also be investigated, our present mode of conducting the business is the best. If the inquiry were open to the public we should require a large court, and the witnesses should be brought up to give evidence in a more methodical manner than is practised by Commissions. This Commission is not named to adjudicate upon a case brought before it, but to inquire into some alleged evils, and to suggest such remedies as may appear advisable. No one-will, I believe, have any just ground of complaint that he has been unjustly treated by this Commission. The publication of the evidence as taken from day to day would be most unfair, as many statements are made to which no reply would appear until after an interval of many clays. If the room were open to the public it would be necessary previously to know what a witness intended to say, in order that the parties affected by the evidence might be summoned to hear and to reply. Our object is to ascertain what remedy can be applied by Law to existing evils; incidentally the evidence may affect some persons, and it will be our duty to take care that they shall have the opportunity of vindicating their characters. With respect to the taking of evidence 169 on oath, he was in a position to say that if the Commission or their Chairman saw any reason to think that they ought to be armed with that power, they would at once communicate with the Government on the subject. On that point also, and in reference to the general conduct of the inquiry, the House and the Government might place the fullest confidence in the Commissioners.