§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETMy Lords, I wish to make a personal explanation respecting a statement which has been made in reference to the petition which has been presented against the return of Members at the late election for the borough of Devonport. It has been stated that, in consequence of a letter which was addressed to me, I ordered a telegram to be sent to the officers at the Devonport Dockyard ordering them to give to the Parliamentary agent every facility for the services of the Speaker's warrants upon such witnesses as were employed in the yard. Now, I wish to state clearly and distinctly what did occur. First of all, no letter was written to me at all, nor was any application made to me on the subject; consequently, I issued no order—and, indeed, I knew nothing whatever about the matter until I saw the notice on the Votes of a Question to be asked in the other House. From inquiries, however, which I have since instituted, I am able to state what actually did occur. An application was made in the usual form to the Secretary of the Admiralty, who referred it to the persons who superintended the business of the dockyards. They consulted the branch of the Admiralty which is connected with legal matters as to whether the Speaker's warrant would have any authority in the dockyards, and afterwards a telegram was sent to the authorities at Devonport, ordering them to give the necessary facilities for the service of the warrants. That proceeding was so much a matter of course that it was never mentioned to me at all, and no notice was taken of it at the Board the next day. As a Member of your Lordships' House, I have thought it only fair to myself to say that I have taken no part in any way in reference to this petition, and that I know nothing whatever of the matter.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, no one who is acquainted with the noble Duke 1377 would for a single moment have supposed that he lent himself to any unfair or improper proceeding; but, at the same time, as he has called your Lordships' attention to this subject—though I had no idea that it would be brought before your Lordships to-night, and know nothing of it except what took place elsewhere—I cannot but think that there has been in some quarter a gross dereliction of duty with regard to this affair. For, in the first place, the Speaker's warrants would run in the dockyards without any interference upon the part of any Member of the Government; and I do not, in the next place, understand for what purpose the Speaker's warrant was required. I believe Speaker's warrants are only necessary where persons have declined to obey the summons of the Select Committee appointed to try the election petition. Supposing these persons had been summoned and had disobeyed the summons, then there would be ground for applying for a Speaker's warrant. But this Committee is not expected to sit until after Easter. I want to know, therefore, what was the reason why, two months before the sitting of the Committee, and consequently before any summons could be issued by the Committee, the Speaker's warrant was sent down to order the attendance of persons, without the slightest knowledge of the evidence that they were about to give or the ground of their presence being required. I cannot help thinking—and the noble Duke will forgive me for saying so—I acquit him altogether—I cannot help thinking that there are circumstances that make this a most suspicious transaction. In the first place, one of the petitioners was Mr. Phinn, who has been one of the Secretaries to the Admiralty, and is now, I believe, an officer employed under the Admiralty. He is one of the petitioners; and on his application—his connection with the Admiralty being notorious—the unusual step is taken to send down a Speaker's warrant two months before the meeting of the Committee; and these persons, instead of being visited at their homes, are collected together in the presence of officers of Her Majesty's Navy, served with the warrant, and examined and cross-examined as to what evidence they were prepared to give two months hence. Now, a Speaker's warrant does not authorize any proceeding of the kind, but simply orders the persons served to attend when called upon to attend; and to have these individuals, who are in the employ 1378 of the dockyard, and who are under the control of the Admiralty, summoned before officers of the Admiralty, and examined and cross-examined in their presence, then and there to elicit in evidence that which is to be brought forward in support of a petition promoted by and in the interests of the Counsel to the Admiralty, does appear to me to implicate some Members of the Government connected with this dockyard in a course of proceeding that is utterly unjustifiable, and that demands the most serious consideration of Parliament. It is not merely sending down a Speaker's warrant, but it is sending down a purely fishing inquiry, to ascertain what evidence could be obtained on the part of the petitioners against the sitting Members; and this is done by the authority and direction, and with the sanction and in the presence of the officers connected with the Admiralty. I must repeat that it is a question which deserves the most serious investigation by Parliament; it is a tampering with the freedom of election not likely to be passed over; and though I entirely acquit the noble Duke of having had anything to do with it, I think that the matter ought not to be allowed to rest here, but that there should be a full inquiry how it was that these parties were subjected to an utterly illegal and unauthorized proceeding.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETI agree with the noble Earl that this is a subject which ought to be thoroughly inquired into; but I wish in justice to Mr. Phinn, to state that I have received a letter from him, in which he says—
I have nothing whatever to do with the Devonport election petition. It is the petition of the electors, and it is true that they claim the seat for me, but they have done so without my concurrence and against my advice.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI make no charge against Mr. Phinn, who did quite right in endeavouring to get as much as he could out of the officials. What I complain of is that it was perfectly well known that Mr. Phinn was a subordinate of the Government and Counsel to the Admiralty, and that it was in his interest that this investigation took place.