§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETSir, I am anxious to say a very few words with reference to an unintentional misstatement which I made on Thursday night, and in which I conveyed to the House that the Duke of Somerset had ordered a certain telegram to be sent to Devonport, giving the necessary facilities for serving your warrant, Sir, upon the workmen in the dockyard. I may state that my knowledge of any acts on the part of the Admiralty was not obtained until Wednesday last at the Board. On that day I was under the full impression that the Duke of Somerset had himself ordered the telegram to be sent. Sir, that was an entirely erroneous view of mine. The Duke of Somerset approved the Order having been issued, and in which I also concurred and do fully concur; but the fact is that the Duke himself was not made aware of that Order having been issued until many days after it had been issued. That Order was issued by the Board of Admiralty, as they considered it to be a mere matter of routine in the dockyard, and they did not bring it to the notice of the Duke until Wednesday morning last, some little time before I was made aware of it, when I came into the Board-room, and the conversation turned on it. I can only express my sincere regret that I was under this erroneous impression as to the actual responsibility of the Duke of Somerset in sending this telegram.
§ MR. HORSMANSir—I also have been asked to give an explanation respecting this affair, and the most serious and important part of it, on behalf of a gentleman whose name has been mixed up in these proceedings—Mr. Phinn. It is known to the House that Mr. Phinn was an unsuccessful candidate for Devonport at the last election. It is known also, that a petition has been presented against the return, praying for the seat for Mr. Phinn. It was therefore, and perhaps naturally, assumed that it was in Mr. Phinn's interest that the application was made to the Admiralty to give facilities for serving the 1506 warrant, and that it was through his influence that that application was successful. For my own part, I knew nothing whatever of these proceedings until I listened to the statements made in this House: but the next morning Mr. Phinn called on me and said that as he was officially connected with the Admiralty his conduct was a matter of public rather than of private interest. He therefore asked me to make a statement to the House on his behalf. I had no opportunity of doing so on Friday; and to-day, instead of my stating the matter orally, Mr. Phinn has written me a short note, which I will read—
As you had not the opportunity of making the statement to the House on my behalf which you kindly promised to do on Friday evening, will you allow me now to state, as compendiously as possible, that though I approved of the petition being presented with a view to a full investigation of the proceedings at the recent election, I declined to take any part in it, and, as far as I could, refused to concur in the prayer for the seat urged on my behalf by the electors? In proof of this, I refer you to the letter of Mr. Travers Smith, and my answer to the letter of Mr. Tripe, one of the petitioners, and the chairman of the Liberal Committee, which I now enclose. I have never interfered, directly or indirectly, with the petition or with the conduct of it since its presentation. I knew nothing of the issue of the warrants, nor of the application to the Admiralty, nor was the matter in any way referred to me by the Board, or to anyone acting with or for me. The first intimation I got of the matter was a notice of Motion given by Sir John Pakington on Tuesday, the 27th of February, which I read in the second edition of The Sun of that day. I then wrote to Lord Clarence Paget, saying I knew nothing whatever of the matter, supposing that it was some local question. I find it necessary to be thus explicit in consequence of allusions made to my supposed connection with the affair, even after the Duke of Somerset had read an extract from my letter denying any connection with the petition.This is a short note of Mr. Travers Smith, the agent for the petitioners. It is dated the 6th of February, a month ago, and it says—43, Parliament St., Westminster, S.W., Feb. 6.My dear Sir,—I am advised that we should do far better to ask for both seats by the petition, whatever we do before Committee. It is a petition by electors only, so that the unsuccessful candidates are in no way responsible for its contents. Have I your permission?—Believe me, very faithfully yours, J. TRAVERS SMITH.Thomas Phinn, Esq., Q.C., 50, Pall Mall.Here is Mr. Phinn's answer, dated the same day—50, Pall Mall, Feb. 6.My dear Sir,—I have no power over the electors. They may pray for anything they please, 1507 but I cannot concur in their prayer. I neither assent nor dissent, simply because the latter would be inoperative, and the former I have steadily refused to do. I have told my clients that I am at their service for the Session, and I shall tell them still that, whatever occurs, I shall redeem the pledge I have given. I cannot concur in the advice you have received.—Yours truly,THOMAS PHINN.It must be distinctly understood that I have nothing to do with the petition except that if I am wanted as a witness I shall be ready.The House will perceive from this letter that Mr. Phinn not only had nothing whatever to do with the petition, but actually said, a month ago, that if the Committee gave him the seat he would not take it, because he had received a retainer as counsel in relation to business before the House of Commons, and acting as counsel for his clients would be incompatible with his holding a seat. Here is a note also from the Chairman of the Devonport Liberal Committee—The Elms, Devonport, March 3.My dear Sir,—I learnt some time since incidentally that you were to be asked to allow your name to be in some way joined in the petition, but I never heard the result. Indeed, I was not curious in the matter, as I knew beforehand, from conversations with you, that you would refuse to be involved in the trouble and expense of contesting the seat. I also understood that your refusal would not affect the petition coming from us as electors, and which was for both seats. Your decision was regretted by us as severing the connection between us, but, as it appeared to me, did not affect our conduct. If this note is of any use as showing that your friends here fully understood that you were no party to the petition, you may use it in any way you please.—Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very truly,L. P. NATHAN, Chairman of the LiberalCommittee at the last election.Now, I think my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir John Pakington) will admit that, as the gravamen of the charge against the Admiralty was that there was an official connected with the Department interested in the seat, the charge falls to the ground after the evidence contained in this correspondence, a month old, that not only did Mr. Phinn refuse to have anything to do with the petition, but that both to the chairman of his committee and to the agent of the petitioners he wrote that, even if the seat were given to him by a Committee of this House, he would not accept it. Under these circumstances, I hope my right hon. Friend will be satisfied as to that part of the case.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONSir, I think the House will permit me to say what is the impression I entertain, both with regard to the explanations which we have 1508 just heard, and also with regard to the position in which this question now stands. Sir, I heard with great interest the brief statement made by my noble Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty; but I confess that I was disappointed at the brevity of that statement. There appears between the statements made by the noble Lord the other night and the explanations given by the noble Duke in another place to be a serious amount of discrepancy; but I have no wish to dwell longer upon this subject, or to enter into any kind of controversy with my noble Friend. After seven years of intercourse, which political differences have not deprived of its friendly character, I have not the least desire to criticize in a hostile spirit, either now or on any other occasion, anything that has fallen from the lips of my noble Friend. But, Sir, I feel bound distinctly to state the impression which is strong upon my mind, that I am quite unable to concur in the opinion expressed last Thursday evening by some hon. Members on both sides of the House—namely, that, although there might have been some grave impropriety committed by the subordinates in the dockyard, the Admiralty itself was free from blame. Now, the impression on my mind is—and the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is much mistaken as to my view of the gravamen of the case, for I by no means agree with him—the impression now upon my mind, subject, of course, to any explanation which may hereafter be received, is that the conduct of the Admiralty in this matter has been gravely culpable and improper. I will in a few words explain in what respect I think the conduct of the Admiralty has been in fault. The noble Lord, in answer to the speech which I made on Thursday, read to us a letter which had been addressed by the partisan attorney of the petitioners in this case, requesting that the Admiralty would interfere in the dockyard at Devonport to afford facilities for serving summonses upon the voters employed there. Now, Sir, in my opinion—and I appeal to the House whether on this point it will not agree with me—there was but one proper answer for the Admiralty to return to that letter from the solicitor for the petitioners. The Admiralty ought to have replied, "We have nothing to do with this matter. The petitioners have the same power of serving warrants upon the voters employed in the dockyard that they have of serving warrants upon any other of the voters in the 1509 borough of Devonport. And we, the Admiralty, decline to make ourselves parties to an election petition for that borough." That, in my opinion, is the only answer that the Admiralty should have returned to the letter of Messrs. Travers Smith and Co., which was read to us the other night. I hold that, by sending a telegram to Devonport authorizing what they called "facilities" for getting these men together, and serving them with summonses in the yard, instead of at their own houses, where they ought to have been served, the Admiralty were, in fact, making themselves parties to the case of the petitioners, and taking a course which they were not justified in adopting. Sir, my noble Friend has tried to-night to pass over this interference by calling it a matter of routine; and I perceive that in another place it has been spoken of as merely a usual proceeding—as only a matter of course. Really, these explanations seem almost to imply that the Government consider that election petitions from dockyard boroughs are matters of daily occurrence. I beg to dissent from that. I know not what proof my noble Friend or any one else may be enabled to give with regard to this mode of serving these warrants being a usual proceeding, but I take leave to doubt whether it can be proved that it is usual; and I venture to express my opinion that, if such a practice has obtained, the sooner it is put an end to the better; because it must be obvious to every one that such a proceeding is inconsistent with the impartiality which ought to be observed by a Government Department in such a case, and is manifestly open to very great abuse. I asked the other evening by whom was that telegram sent? by whose order was it sent? I received no answer to those inquiries. We have since been told that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had no knowledge whatever of these proceedings—that he was altogether ignorant of what had taken place until some days afterwards. I appeal to the House to consider what is the state of things within the Admiralty which is disclosed by these statements. A partisan attorney writes, we know not to whom—we know not at this moment by whom his letter was received—he writes to some one in the Admiralty a letter demanding the assistance that he wished. Iu consequence of that demand a telegram is sent down to Devonport directing that the assistance he required shall be given to him. 1510 But up to this hour we do not know by whom the telegram was issued or by whom it was sent. All we know is that, as my noble Friend now says, some days elapsed before the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty was in the least aware of this improper interference. And when a partisan attorney was thus allowed to enter a dockyard and bring together the workmen, how can we feel any surprise that abuses resulted, as might naturally have been expected, from the interference on the part of the Admiralty? Upon the whole, bearing in mind the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House (Mr. Gladstone) made on Thursday, and bearing also in mind what has fallen from the noble Duke in another place, and the explanation that has just been given here, I presume that Her Majesty's Government will have no objection to these transactions being made the subject of an inquiry by a Committee. I think it is due to the importance of the question—I think it is due to the extraordinary allegations which, on the authority of others, I brought before the House on. Thursday evening with regard to what is of the greatest importance—namely, the direct interference of the Board of Admiralty to promote the interest of a particular candidate for the representation of a dockyard borough—an interference with respect to which this House must feel the greatest jealousy—it is due, I say, to these considerations that this matter should be investigated. Those agents acted in a manner which was not warranted by the occasion; indeed, the interference was wholly unnecessary to accomplish the object in view. I am of opinion that a gross injustice has been practised upon the voters engaged in the dockyard. The fair and proper course to be pursued, therefore, is, that a Committee, chosen by the Committee of Selection, should be appointed to investigate the case. Looking at the admissions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday evening, when he said that an inquiry must be made, considering also the language since used in another place, I beg to express my hope that Her Majesty's Government will consent to the appointment of a Committee, chosen by the Committee of Selection, to investigate the whole of the circumstances of the case. According to Parliamentary practice, it is not in my power, without notice, now to move that such a Committee be appointed; but, in the hope that the 1511 right hon. Gentleman will give his consent to the proposal, I give notice that either to-morrow or on Thursday next I shall move for the appointment of the Committee.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERThere is no difficulty whatever in answering the question which has been put by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) as to the precise manner in which this direction of the Admiralty came to be given. The letter of Messrs. Travers was addressed, not, I think, to the Secretary of the Admiralty officially, but to Mr. Romaine, in his own name. The Board was attended by Sir Frederick Grey and Admiral Eden, and the words of the Order given by the Board were, "Telegraph to Plymouth that the necessary facilities for serving the warrants may be permitted." Those were the words. With those words the Board lost sight, if I may say so, of the transaction. They believed that what they had done was their duty, and a matter of course, respecting which they really had no option. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed, and is entitled to entertain, a different opinion; he thinks a decided error was committed by the Admiralty in giving these facilities, or interfering in any manner in the affair. At the time of the discussion on Thursday evening the circumstances of the case were entirely new to me; but since that time we have had an opportunity of thinking them over; and I must say, for myself, that the opinion I then formed that no serious error had been committed by the Admiralty is now confirmed, and, indeed, has taken the form of an opinion that no error whatever was committed. I do not agree with what was stated in that debate—that it was the business of the Admiralty to desire the bearer of the Speaker's warrant to take that course which the law allowed. I will not now speak of the courtesy which prevails between public authorities. You, Sir, had, I believe, in the regular, uniform, and established course, issued these warrants with a view to giving effect to certain provisions of the law; and although it may be that the warrants do not rest upon an express statutory provision, yet at any rate they rest, I apprehend, upon Parliamentary usage and powers that are entirely unquestionable. Therefore, those warrants were entitled to be considered as legal documents. I believe, after the best inquiry we could make, there is no doubt that a personal 1512 service of these warrants was requisite. That is the judgment at which we have deliberately arrived. Personal service being requisite, and it not being sufficient for the parties intrusted with these warrants to leave them at the residences of the men, those parties, I apprehend—and that is the next step in the matter for consideration—were entitled to find the voters wherever they could—that is to say, they were entitled to enter the dockyard while the men were at work, and to search for the parties for the purpose of delivering the warrants. Now, as I said before, I will not speak about the courtesy to be observed by a Government Department to the authority of this House; but I will speak of public convenience, and I would ask whether it would have contributed to the public convenience or advantage in any sense whatever to have permitted the clerks of Messrs. Travers Smith and Co., bearing these warrants, to go into the dockyard and proceed from room to room, and from shed to shed, inquiring which is John Robinson, which is James Thompson, and so forth. I ask whether it would have been for the public convenience that the attorneys' clerks should have gone into the dockyard and made these inquiries as they could of several scores of men while they were at work. On the contrary, it is, I think, quite obvious that it was much better to make some arrangements with the authorities of the dockyard, by which, if they thought fit, a convenient plan could be adopted for placing those warrants in the hands of the men. What I have to say with regard to the conduct of the Admiralty is that we do not now entertain an opinion different from that which we gave the other night. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has inquired whether Her Majesty's Government had any objection to prosecute an investigation into the matter by means of a Parliamentary Committee. In reply, I would say that letters have been written to Devonport for the purpose of obtaining the fullest information, and that I would rather reserve my answer to the Question till those inquiries shall have been made, when the right hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of fully considering the case. At that time I shall be prepared to answer the inquiry. I may even now state that the Government have every disposition to resort to whatever means will secure for the House the fullest information with respect to every part of the transaction.
§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEWill the Return state the number of hours occupied in the examination of the workmen?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETYes.
§ MR. HUNTThe right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to think that when the Speaker's warrant has to be served in a dockyard the proper course is to get the assistance of the dockyard authorities to serve during the hours of work, and in the rooms. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is acquainted with the dockyards; but those who are familiar with them know that the gates of the yards are kept close during certain hours. At the usual time for the workmen to leave they are opened; and the proper way to serve the warrants would have been for the person in charge of them, assisted by parties to identify the men, to have stationed themselves outside or just within the gates as the men were leaving, and to have handed them the warrants. Had that course been adopted, there would have been no ground of complaint on the part of anybody; and thus the work of serving the warrants on the persons engaged in the dockyards would have been far easier than that involved in serving them upon any other class of people required to give evidence before the Committee.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEWas the order to send the telegram that of the Board of the day or that of a special Board summoned for the purpose, and who was the secretary?
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, I believe the telegram was sent by order of the Board of the day. There were only two members of the Admiralty present, and the secretary attending upon them, and who wrote the order was Mr. Romaine.
§ MR. ROEBUCKI ask for information this Question of the Attorney General, If the Speaker's warrant had been left at the residence of the persons summoned, would it not have been a sufficient service in law?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL—I rather think not. In the first place, I think it would not be, even if a separate warrant was issued for each individual person. I understand, however, that it is not customary to issue separate warrants. On the occasion in question the names of several persons were included in a single warrant, which must be shown to the person who is served, and a copy is left with him. Under such circumstances the original warrant could not have been left at the house of the voter.