DERBY WRIT. (Hansard, 17 August 1848)

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
was sorry to find the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) disposed to delay the issue of the writ for Derby. The conduct of the Government upon this question had been very extraordinary. On 196 the 17th of April they opposed the issue of the writ; on the 1st of June, with the single exception of the Solicitor General, the Members of the Government then present supported it, the Home Secretary and others who had before voted against it voting for it; on the 16th of June the Home Secretary and other Members of the Government voted against it; on the 23rd of June the Members of the Government then present, with the exception of the Solicitor General, voted for it. New writs had issued for other boroughs which stood on the schedule to the Corrupt Practices Bill, and where the Members were unseated for treating or for bribery, under much more aggravated circumstances. Derby ought not to be made an exception; the report merely suggested that a practice had prevailed there of appointing and paying freemen as messengers, which might come within the terms of the noble Lord's Act—an Act he had himself admitted to be so strict as to need explanation, if not modification. The Corrupt Practices Bill, if passed, would not suspend the writ; and that borough ought to have its representatives to defend it in the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving that a new writ be issued for the electing of two burgesses to serve in Parliament for Derby, in the room of Mr. Strutt and Mr. Gower.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
would not occupy time by defending the votes of the Members of the Government on this subject, but would content himself with saying, that having twice voted for issuing the writ, he could not be supposed to be prejudiced against that course. But the House having several times decided that the writ should not be issued, it was a question proper to be considered, what ought to be done in conformity with those decisions. Now, there was a Bill before the House for instituting an inquiry with respect to this borough; when that Bill had passed, it would be settled what mode of inquiry was to be adopted, and there would then, as he thought, be no sufficient objection to the issue of the writ. In the mean time, he would move that this debate be adjourned till Thursday next.

§ MR. G. BANKES
reminded the House that one borough was rescued from the schedule of the Corrupt Practices Bill by the interposition of a Member for that place; Derby ought to have the same opportunity. It was not certain that the Corrupt Practices Bill would pass this 197 House; and there was a moral certainty that it would not pass the other House this Session, unless, indeed, there was to be an adjournment instead of a prorogation. Some of these boroughs would demand to be heard at the bar of the other House before being condemned.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL
understood the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to mean, that in case the Bill should not pass, the writ ought to issue, the only object in the postponement being to ascertain what course the House would take with respect to an inquiry. It was not proposed to wait till the Bill had the assent of the other House, which, however, would not be likely to refuse its sanction to such a Bill when sent up from this House.

§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
said, that the opposition of his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) would have surprised him less, if the grounds on which it rested had been different. He could well have understood, if the Bill to prevent corrupt practices at elections had not only passed this House, but had been sanctioned by the Upper House, and was proceeding regularly and successfully there, that his noble Friend might fairly have said, that a measure affecting, it might be, the future constituency of Derby, or, at all events, the exercise of the elective franchise there, was so far advanced in its stages, that it would become the law of the land in another week; and, therefore, till the expiration of that week, it was inexpedient to issue a writ for a borough so circumstanced. But the case was here entirely different; the Bill had not yet passed this House; and in its actual state was worth no more than the paper on which it was written; indeed, not so much, since, unless it should become law, it was spoilt for paper, and was good for nothing as a statute. If the resolutions of either House did not constitute law, so in like manner the Bills of either House were absolutely valueless, until adopted by the other House, and enacted by the Crown. Under these circumstances, and believing that the exercise of the elective franchise was a right, a privilege, and a duty, and that no subject who is entrusted with it, ought to he deprived of it for a single day, unless on grounds not of expediency, but of justice; and believing, further, that no such grounds exist in the present case, and that the proportion of the guilty in the late election was a mere fraction compared with the guiltless, he was prepared to vote for the issue of the writ.

§ MR. ROUNDELL PALMER
could not see any connexion between the question before the House and the Corrupt Practices Bill; that was not a Bill to do anything to Derby in particular, but to institute an inquiry into the case of eight or nine boroughs, new writs having been issued for all of them except Derby and Leicester, and issued for some of them under circumstances much worse, so far as they yet appeared, than in the case of Derby. The passing of the Bill would be as safe if this writ issued, as if it did not.

MR. W. P. WOOOD
thought the question had a great deal of connexion with the Bill. It was not impossible that the same course might be taken in this instance as in that of Yarmouth. The passing of the Bill would have a moral effect on the conduct of the freemen at the next election.

§ LORD G. BENTINCK
was surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford did not perceive that the cases of Great Yarmouth and Derby were quite dissimilar. In the case of Great Yarmouth, a Bill was introduced for the disfranchisement of the freemen, and that Bill had passed into a law; but nothing of the kind had been proposed with respect to Derby. It was futile to talk of the passing of the Bill having a moral effect upon the freemen of Derby, because the inquiry which would take place would have reference only to the past. The Solicitor General contended that the House was justified in suspending writs when Committees recommended that course to be taken; but the Committee on the Derby case had not recommended the suspension of the writ, and, therefore, he was justified in claiming the hon. and learned Gentleman's vote in favour of the Motion.

List of the AYES.
Abdy, T. N.	Cholmeley, Sir M.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Cobden, R.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of	Duncan, G.
	Dundas, Adm.
Barnard, E. G.	Ebrington, Visct.
Bellew, R. M.	Elliot, hon. J. E.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Berkeley, hon. C. F.	Forster, M.
Bernal, R.	Fortescue, hon. J. W.
Birch, Sir T. B.	Fox, W. J.
Bowring, Dr.	Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Greene, J.
Bright, J.	Grey, R. W.
Brown, W.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Campbell, hon. W. F.	Grosvenor, Earl

Hawes, B.	Romilly, Sir J.
Hay, Lord J.	Russell, Lord J.
Hayter, W. G.	Rutherfurd, A.
Headlam, T. E.	Salwey, Col.
Hill, Lord M.	Scholefield, W.
Howard, P. H.	Scrope, G. P.
Jervis, Sir J.	Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Kershaw, J.	Smith, J. A.
Lewis, G. C.	Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Lushington, C.	Stuart, Lord D.
Maher, N. V.	Talfourd, Serj.
Mangles, R. D.	Tenison, E. K.
Martin, J.	Thicknesse, R. A.
Martin, C. W.	Thompson, Col.
Matheson, Col.	Thornely, T.
Maule, rt. hon. F.	Townshend, Capt.
Milner, W. M. E.	Tufnell, H.
Moffatt, G.	Turner, E.
Moore, G. H.	Villiers, hon. G.
Morris, D.	Wall, C. B.
Norreys, Lord	Ward, H. G.
O'Brien, T.	Watkins, Col.
Osborne, R.	Willcox, B. M.
Paget, Lord A.	Wilson, J.
Paget, Lord C.	Wilson, M.
Parker, J.	Wrightson, W. B.
Pearson, C.
Power, Dr.	TELLERS.
Raphael, A.	Hume, J.
Rich, H.	Wood, W. P.

List of the NOES.
Anstey, T. C.	Hotham, Lord
Bankes, G.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Blackstone, W. S.	Jones, Capt.
Brisco, M.	Law, hon. C. F.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Cabbell, B. B.	Mandeville, Visct.
Christy, S.	Mullings, J. R.
Cocks, T. S.	Napier, J.
Coles, H. B.	O'Connor, F.
Dick, Q.	Palmer, B.
Dodd, G.	Pinney, W.
Fox, S. W. L.	Plowden, W. H. C.
Goring, C.	Sibthorp, Col.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Grogan, E.	Urquhart, D.
Halford, Sir H.	Verner, Sir W.
Hamilton, G. A.	Vivian, J. E.
Harris, hon. Capt.	Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Heneage, G. H. W.	Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Henley, J. W.
Hildyard, T. B. T.	TELLERS.
Hindley, C.	Newdegate, C. N.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Spooner, R.