The EARL of CLANCARTYhaving presented a petition from a Union in Ireland against the Irish Poor Law Bill,
LORD BROUGHAMwished to ask the noble Lord the Chairman of the Irish Poor Law Committee, whether it was true that that Committee had been stayed and obstructed in the proceedings yesterday by the refusal on the part of a witness to produce certain papers, he being fortified in his refusal by the Poor Law Commissioners? He (Lord Brougham) could not have believed 1215 the monstrous fact if he had not seen and spoken with the witness alluded to, Mr. Gulson, Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, upon the subject.
The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid, that the fact, as stated by the noble and learned Lord, was quite true; but it had since been ascertained that the papers would be produced to-morrow.
LORD BROUGHAMThis is an obstruction of the proceedings of the Committee; and by it a grave offence against our privileges has been committed. My Lords, the Poor Law Commissioners must be informed that it is at their high peril that they refuse to produce any documents that are demanded by one of your Committees from a witness. And, then, to say that Mr. Gulson should obtain their permission first! We do not want their permission. The Committee has only to report to the House that they are so obstructed and stayed in their proceedings by reason of the non-production of this document, and this House will give them, if they have not the power themselves, a specific order of the House for the production of the papers they may require.
§ The EARL of ST. GERMANS, having unfortunately been absent from the Committee on the occasion, begged to ask his noble Friend whether these papers, to produce which so much reluctance had been exhibited, were not marked "private and confidential."
The EARL of CLANCARTYsaid, that although the papers in question were marked "private and confidential," according to the statement of the witness, they were the instructions of the witness, and the only means of carrying out the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he had not had the honour of assisting his noble Friend on the Committee the day upon which this circumstance occurred, and being unwilling to prejudge any set of men, or assume they were in error before he had positive evidence on the subject, was inclined to suppose it might yet turn out that the Poor Law Commissioners had directed Mr. Gulson, not of his own accord, to offer to produce certain documents which they would have been willing and ready to produce if called for by order of the House. But he was decidedly of opinion that the Poor Law Commissioners had no right to withhold documents that were marked "private and confidential," because their Lordships, by obtaining partial information 1216 only, would be left in a worse position than if they had got no information at all.
§ The EARL of CLAREsaid, that there was no ground for the supposition of the noble Lord, as Mr. Gulson had been positively forbidden by the Poor Law Commissioners to produce the papers in question. The Committee, therefore, ordered the witness to withdraw, and stopped the proceedings, intending to appeal to the House. In the meantime, the Poor Law Commissioners thought better of it, and agreed to produce the papers. In justice to Mr. Gulson, he must say that no indisposition to produce them had been evinced on his part; that he had been ordered by his superiors not to produce them; and that he had merely thought it right to obey that order, and await the decision of their Lordships' House.
LORD CAMPBELLthought there must be some misunderstanding on the subject; for he could not believe that the Poor Law Commissioners were so ignorant of the law as to do anything so preposterous and absurd, as to direct that those documents should not be produced before their Lordships' Committee. Be the documents what they might it was for the Committee, and not for the Commissioners by their orders beforehand, to settle what documents should be produced before the Committee.
LORD BROUGHAMMy Lords, the Poor Law Commissioners are wholly without excuse in this manner. The document is not a private letter at all. I have read Mr. Gulson's letters to the Commissioners, to ask leave to produce the document before the Committee. That document contained his instructions from them. But the answer was, that he was not to produce the letter, because it was "private and confidential." Good God! my Lords, is a public department—the most delicate perhaps to administer of all—to be allowed to give to its officers public instructions to be produced when called for, and private and confidential instructions which are not to be produced? I am the less disposed to concede this, because I see that the discretion of the Commissioners has been at fault on other occasions. I have read Mr. Parker's case, and though I shall not say anything to prejudge a matter now undergoing investigation in another place, yet this I will tell them, that I have defended them through good report and through bad report when they were in the right: in the nomination of some of them I had a hand, and therefore I feel responsible for 1217 them; but I warn them to attend more to the letter of Acts of Parliament—to the will of Parliament—and to do their duty without fear of the newspapers; for that charge I make against them, that in Mr. Parker's case they have acted, and have avowed that they have acted, through fear of the press.
§ Subject dropped.