HL Deb 15 May 1855 vol 138 cc589-90
THE EARL OF HARROWBY

wished to be allowed to read a letter received by him from Dr. Twiss, and dated yesterday, in explanation of the alleged tampering with the evidence taken before the Maynooth Commission— 19, Park Lane, May 14, 1855. My dear Lord—I was absent from London on Friday, but I have had an interview with Mr. Henry West since my return. I am anxious that our secretaries should be relieved from the imputation of having been parties to any tampering with the evidence. The rule which we laid down, as you will remember, was, that the witnesses should have liberty to make formal alterations in the first transcript of their evidence, for the purpose of expressing their views more clearly or with greater precision, but not to introduce any substantial changes, and that if they desired to add explanations of importance, they should annex them as notes to their original evidence. I have every reason to believe that this rule was carefully observed. The cases of Dr. Flanagan and Professor O'Hanlon were peculiar. The former gentleman was the first witness called before us, and his examination was avowedly conversational; and in the course of it he was given to understand, when he expressed distrust of his memory, that he might refer to the books and documents in his possession as secretary to the trustees, and supply with the requisite accuracy, and in whatever form he pleased the necessary information. Professor O'Hanlon, the second witness, was not furnished with any written notice of his evidence to correct, but only with a printed proof; and not finding enough space in the proof to make his corrections, he wrote his evidence over again, copying the questions accurately, and embodying in his answers the corrections which he wished to introduce. The special attention of the Commissioners was called to this case by the secretaries, and it was not until a careful comparison of the two versions of evidence had been made by the Commissioners themselves, that the corrected version was allowed to be set up in type. The other professors received written notes of their evidence, and corrected them before they were set up in type. Some misapprehension, however, may have arisen from the party, whoever he may be, who has betrayed the trust of his employer in the printing office, in Dublin, having misunderstood the reasons why certain portions were struck out after being set up in type. It may be as well, therefore, to explain, that after the evidence had been received in its complete state, such portions of it as contained repetitions of unimportant details were purposely struck out if there was no conflict of evidence, lest the appendix should have become so great in bulk as to deter the reader from its perusal, and thereby frustrate the object of its publication. With regard to the occurrence of two territorial titles in the catalogue of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland, I have no doubt that it is to be attributed to an unexpected variation in Battersby's Directory, our only available source of information which escaped detection from us, and the responsibility of which oversight the Commissioners must accept; but it is only just to our Roman Catholic colleagues that it should be known that the Commissioners unanimously decided to prevent, if possible, the use of any territorial title, and I had hoped that our work would have been irreproachable in this respect. As it is, I am happy to think that so few blots have been discovered in it. As to the circumstance of one of our colleagues having submitted, on his own responsibility, some portions of the evidence to Dr. Cullen, as one of the visitors of the college, with a view to satisfy himself upon some conflicting statements as to doctrine, I was not made aware of it, any more than your Lordship, until after the Report had been settled and the Commissioners had concluded their sittings; so that, whether the statement against Dr. Cullen be correct or not, that he misused the confidence reposed in him in referring the matter to his superiors at Rome, the charge against our colleague as to the evidence 'having been cooked at Rome to make things pleasant' cannot be substantiated. It may have been an act of indiscretion on his part to disclose any portion of the printed evidence prematurely, but I think it just towards him to declare that it had not the slightest influence whatever upon the proceedings of the Commission, either in the evidence or in the Report.—I am, my dear Lord, yours very faithfully, TRAVERS TWISS. The Right Hon. the Earl of Harrowby, &c.