The Sun. — London, England, 1861-03-13 00:00:00

iMPE RIAU PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY,) The LORD CRINCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at fve o'clock. CHURCH RATES, Fetitions against the abolition of Church Rates were resented by the Earl of Wilton, Lord Sondes, Lord Clin t -n, and other peers. FRENCH OCCUPATION OF SYRIA. The Marquis of NORMAN BY presented a petition from rrsons in Newcastle,-upon-Tyne against the French occu ation of Syria MARRIAGE LAWS. Lord WODEHOUSE presented petitions from Ityde, a::.3btbourne, and other places, in favour of legalising mar tiage with a deceased wife's sister. ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION BILL. i_)n bringing up the report of the committee on this bill, The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the insertion of an ralditional clause, which was agreed to, and the report was received. TRADE MARKS BILL. 'The report of the committee on this bill was received. INCLOSURE BILL. This bill passed through committee without amendment. BANK OF ENGLAND PAYMENTS BILL. On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE this bill passed through committee. TITUF,S. The Earl of POW'S moved for a return of all tithes commuted and apportions 1 under the 6th and ith William IV., cap. 71, from 31st of Dec., 1855, to 31st of Dec., 1860, oktinguishing between those assigned to clerical appro riators and their lessees, parochial incumbents, lay im vropriators, and schools and colleges, given in continuation of the papers of the House of Commons of 1848 and 1856. The motion was agreed to. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER tcok the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Bristol and South Wales Union Railway, Dublin (City) Stearn Packet Company,' Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Raaway,.and Edenficld Chapel to Little Bolton The Rhyl harbour Bridge and Railway Bill was read a pecond time. Col. W. I'ATTEN moved that it be an instruction to the committee on group U of private bills, that they have power to consolidate the Middleton Improvement Bill and the Tonge Improvement Bill into one bill.—Agreed to. 3IR. WHITESIDE'S RECEPTION BY THE HOUSE. On the entrance of Mr.Whiteside,at half-past four o'clock, the right hon. and learned gentleman was warmly greeted by the cheers of hon. members on both sides of the house, who thus congratulated the distinguished advocate of Mrs. Yelverton, in the late trial of " Thelwall v. Yelverton," upon his reappearance in the house. Mr. 'Whiteside bowed his acknowl dgements as he walked upon the chamber, and took his seat in his usual place on the right of Mr. Disraeli. MAGISTRATES IN HOLY ORDERS, On the motion of Mr. T. DtNCOMBE a return of the number of magistrates in holy orders in each county of England and Wales was ordered. ALDERNEY HARBOUR. On the motion of Mr. LIDDELL a return of the number c,f vessels which had entered the harbour of Alderney for purposes of refuge during the last ten years, stating their respective tonnage, and distinguishing coasting from foreign bound ships, was ordered. THE NATIVE WAR IN NEW ZEALAND. Mr. ADDERLEY asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangement had been pro posed to the New Zealand Government as to the propor tion of the expense of the present native war which was to be charged on the Colonial Treasury ; and, whether there had been such an offer made as that the expenses of what ever local mill ia may be raised should become a charge on the Colonial Treasury, but that all expenses incurred by the employment of Eritish troops should be borne by the Imperial Treasury ? Mr. C. FOR'l ESCUE said that no such arrangement as that alluded to had been made. SIR BALDWIN WALKER. Captain TALBOT asked the Secretary to the Admi ralty, in reference to the search for Sir Baldwin Walker, whether the Admiralty had telegraphed, or intended to telegraph, to our Minister at Lisbon to send a fast ship from the Tagus to Madeira, in order to intercept the Nar cissus when she called there 2 Lord C. PAGET replied in the negative, assigning as a reason that they had no ground for supposing that the Narcissus would touch at Madeira. WORKHOUSE OFFICERS. Mr. LANIGAN asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether her Majesty's Government had any intention of introducing (this session) any bill authorising the Poor Law Commissioners to grant compensation to Workhouse officers who, having spent the best portion of their lives in the Public Service, may become, from old age or other causes, unable to discharge their duties? Mr. CARDWELL said that the subject was one which deserved attention, and he had no doubt it would receive due consideration by the Commissioners. NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES. Mr. A. MILLS asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Commission on the Ngwfoundland Fisheries had presented their report, and whether any re cent correspondence affecting the settlement of this ques tion had taken place between the Governments of England and France ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that the commission had made a report on the matter in 1859, and negotiations had been going on subsequently with the French Government, but there were some points of difference which were not yet settled. GARIBALDIAN PRISONERS In reply to Mr. E. JAMES, Lord J. RUSSELL said that these prisoners had been liberated. REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. Mr. T. D UNCONIBE rose to move the following motion, of which he had given notice, and which stood on the paper.— " That it is the opinion of this house that it will be their duty to lose no further time in giving such complete effect t 4) the act f the last reign, whereby reforms were made in the representative system, as shall carry out the subse quent recommendations of the Crown, and fulfil the just xpeetations of the people." - The hon. member said that he had altered the terms of his resolution in order not to interfere with the bills of his lion. friends the members for East Surrey and fur Leeds, both of which he approved of fully. With respect to the bill introduced by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) last ses sion, he said its not being passed was no loss to the cause of reform, and was an event for which the country was not inconsolable. (Laughter.) When the question stood over in consequence of the fate of that bill he did not ex pect it would have been indefinitely postponed by Gevern meat, and he designated such postpsnement as humiliating to reformers, discreditable to Ministers, disrespectful to the Sovereign, and insulting to the people. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) The noble lord (the member for the city, of London) had twitted the house with the assertion that the country was satisfied with the Re form Bill of 1832, but he denied the accuracy of the asser tion, and referred in support of that statement to the fact of the late Government being compelled to introduce a mea sure of reform. (Hear, hear.) That bill was not satis factory, and it was on the faith of the present Govern ment bringing forward a satisfactory measure of reform that they were placed in power. (Hear, hear.) He denied (ee that there we's any compact amongst Reformers with respect to the principle of finality, fur which the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had formerly advocated, and he for one never considered the bill of 1832 complete. lie was now satisfied that the spirit of that hill bad evaporated in the altered circumstances of the time, and that a large measure of reform was imperatively required. He appealed to the GOvernment to introduce a comprehensive measure. I f they did not adopt that course reformers must endeavour to get r. form, bit by bit, as was proposed by the hen, members for East Surrey and Leeds until they could obtain a Government with a heart brave and a hand strong enough to grant a reform measure which was suited to the necessities of the time and the wishes of a patient and loyal people; Sir G. C. LEWIS having referred to the alterations in the resolution, which consist of the omission of words to the effeq that the Government should take the course pre scribed immediately after the publication of the census this Year, said that the present resolution was superfluous and nugatory considering that there were two measures before the house on this subject. Mr. WARNER, amid loud cries of " divide," supported th?taetion of t ho hon. member. Id r• t b iGIIT said that he felt obliged to his hon. friend the h metue u, r for Finsbury, not for his resolution, but fol. result fn a4 m . mi wable speech, as he considered that be would lie did riot discussion on the Eubj , ict of reform. any value, for think that the resolution was of fitir.h in offi c i a l he (Mr. Bright) had lost all regarded as „, , , ,)ve Pr t e h mises, which he at present nothing. Besides, even if the Government shinAd then measure on this s t his wishes, they could not introduce any question until the bills al luded to hid been disposed of He would therefore sug gest to his hon, friend that.whehliisad motion. nowsh ( e l x l c e e a p r t .) to Mr. T. DUNCOMBE send promote the cause of reform, and he would accede to the , ; iiggestiol of his hon, friend the member for Birmingham end not pre:4; his resolution. The motion was accordingly withdrawn and the subject 41ropped. DWELLTNGS OF THE WORKING CLASS ES Mr. STANLEY moved f9ir.a select committ ee to c oI,. t eider the means of improving the dwellings of woxiiing classes in popurotO ,towns, and of obtain for them air, exercise,' anti occasional reereati l .so fig ,Conduce to their. health and comfo . In support of his motion fie adVei4ed to the present stags of the dwellings of the humbler classes in the 'metropolts and elsewhere, and the various reports of sanitary and other commissioners, which demonstrated a most revolting condition of the working classes in certain localities. This result had been produced by the construction of railways and local improvements without making any adequate provision for the dwellings of the labouring population. He contended that on the grounds of religion, of morality, and public policy this state of things should be remedied. The, remedy he proposed was the erection of improved dwellings by conjoint capital, raised by small sums, in shares, under limited liability, which would return an interest of 4 percent. Sir G. LEWIS said when the house was asked to agree to a practical resolution. it must consider more than good and kind intentions, and he had failed to perceive how the appointment of a select committee could promote the end Mr.. Slaney had in view. Ho was at a loss to see how new legislation or any additional facilities were required for the raising and application of capital to the objects he proposed. If it was the general opinion of the house, however, that the objects could be best attained by the appointment of a committee, he should not resist the motion ; but various committees were already sitting, and, upon the whole, he should advise Mr. Slaney not to press it. __ . _ _ _ The motion was withdrawn. Mr. LYGON obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the voluntary disgavelling of lands. RAILWAY ACCIDENTS. Mr BENTINCK moved a resolution to the effect that, in consequence of the great number of rail way accidents, some of which have arisen from the non-adoption by railway companies of precautions recommended in the evidence given before the Rail way Accidents Committee, it has become desirable that her Majesty's Government should introduce further legis lation on the subject of railway traffic, with a view to enforce the adoption by all railway companies of those pre cautions. He argued that the objections, that it was inex• pedient to do away with the responsibility of railway direc tors, and that the number of railway accidents was small, furnished no answer to his resolution if most of the acci dents could be traced to the non-adoption of the precautions referred to, and which he pointed out. The motion was seconded by Mr. JACKSON, who strongly urged that there should bo more action in this matter on the part of the Government. Mr. THOMPSON believed that the interference of Par liament was not the surest way of diminishing the number of railway accidents, while it would take away the respon sibility of the railway directors. The most effectual mode of prevention was by the use of the best possible materials, by employing the most careful men, and by enforcing the most rigid discipline. Mr. BAILLIE supported the motion. The discussion was continued by Mr. Dutton, Sir F. Smith, Colonel Gilpin, and Sir J. Paxton. Mr. M. GIBSON said the resolution asked the house to legislate according to the evidence taken before the com mittee; but there was so little agreement among the wit nesses that it would be difficult for the Government to draw a bill upon the evidence. The committee, in their report, pointed out three principal causes of accidents, and he contended that Parliament was unable to deal practi cally with either. Was there, than, no redress ? The redress was to be found in Lord Campbell's Act. With regard to the two definite recommendations in the com mittee's report, he stated reasons why he was of opinion that, at present, it was not advisable to interfere by legis lation, or judicious on the part of the Government to ask for additional powers. After further debate, in which Mr. James, Mr. Paull, Mr. Haliburton, and Sir H. Verney took part, Mr. BENTINCK withdrew his motion. CHINA. Col. SYKES called attention to that portion of the papers upon China affairs relating to events at Shanghai, and asked what line of policy it is intended to pursue in our future re lations with the Tae-pings, or National party, in China. He moved an address for any further papers that may have been received relating to events at Shanghai, prefacing his motion by a long detailed narrative of the origin and pro gress of the Tae-ping insurrection, and of the occurrences at Shanghai, reading, amidst unmistakeable symptoms of impatience, copious extracts of publications explaining the religious doctrines and creed of the Tae-pings, with whom, he thought, we should come to an amicable understanding. Lord J. RUSSELL observed that it was very difficult to deal with the speech the house had heard, and that the re ligious creed of the rebels was not a proper subject of dis cussion there ; but the conduct of Mr, Bruce and Mr. Meadows, which Col. Sykes had impugned, was a fit ques tion for the house. He very briefly detailed the facts, and insisted that those gentlemen were fully justified, and that they had done no more than their duty. The motion was withdrawn. THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY. Admiral DIINCOMBE moved the nomination of the Select Committee on the Board of Admiralty :—Sir James Graham, Sir F. Baring, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Henley, Lord C. Paget, Mr. Corry, Admiral Duncombe, Sir H. Willoughby, Mr. Beamish, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Bentinck, Sir J. Elphinstone, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Philipps, and Mr. Whitbread. The name of Sir J. Graham being put by the SPEAKER, Mr. BENTINCK said the course which he was about to take might be somewhat unusual, but he had not decided on taking it without sufficient grounds. His long and un interrupted friendship with the right hon. baronet—whose absence, and the cause of whose absence, they all so sincerely regretted—would show that he had no personal motives in objecting to his name. But one of the principal questions for consideration by the committee was whether distin guished public men, being civilians, were qualified to act at or preside over the Board of Admiralty. The right hon. baronet had etccupied the position of First Lord, and there fore if placed upon the committee would be at once both judge and jury in his awn case. Upon this committee there was a large number of official names, sufficient to secure in it an official preponderance. He quite admitted that the Admiralty should be fairly represented ; but it would have been sufficient to nominate the present Secretary to the Board (Lord C. Paget), the member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry), who had already filled the same position with credit, and one of the Lords of the Admiralty (Mr. Whitbread). For these reasons he thought that the name of the right hon. baronet ought to be struck out. Admit al WALCOT T maintainee that when an inquiry was to be instituted into the administration of the navy ex- First Lords of the Admiralty ought not to be on the com mittee. Though they might go into the committee with a perfect determination to act with impartiality it was not in human nature that they should not show a bias. To insure full weight with the public to the result of the inquiry the m embers of the committee ought to be above all suspicion. (Hear, hear.) Mr. H. BAILLIE, without going so far as to say that no ex-First Lord ought to be on the committee, found serious fault with its composition. Oat of the 15 members, seven were, or had been connected with the Admiralty—(hear)— and it was but natural to suppose that gentlemen who had served in that department would have a natural bias in favour of it. (Hear.) He was afraid that the hon. and gallant admiral who had moved for the committee had not shown that he was the man to undertake a searching in quiry into the shortcomings of the Admiralty. He had told the house that he did not think it necessary to have Sir Baldwin - Walker as a witness before the committee, and he gave a most curious reason for this opinion. It was because Sir Baldwin Walker had recently given evidence before a commission appointed to inquire into the administration of the dockyards. But this was not a committee to inquire into the dockyards ; it was to inquire into the mode of doing business at the Admiralty—(hear)—and surely there could not be a more competent witness than a gentleman who for 14 years had been the chief executive officer of the Board. Then, the gallant admiral gave another most extraordinary reason for not wishing for the presence of Sir Baldwin Walker. He told the house that the admiral was a most cautious man—that he never gave his eviden4 without dwelling maturely on every word. That was the very rea son which would make him the best evidence. (Hear, hear.) Ihe committee did not want witnesses who would give their opinions without consideration. (Hear.) They wanted men who would give their opinions after mature deliberation, and then they would be able to place implicit reliance on their evidence. On a former occasion he had expressed his opinion that this committee was not likely to lead to much result. He agreed with his right hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire that this committee, without Sir B. Walker, would be like the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted—by particular desire. (Laughter.) What had occurred had only confirmed that opinion, and he was afraid the labours of the committee were not likely to be brought to any satisfactory termination. Lord PALMERSTON—It might almost seem unneces sary fir anybody sitting on this bench to mix himself up in any difference of opinion which seems to.prevail on the other side as to the committee.which has been moved for by the gallant admiral opposite, and which is now objected to by an hon. gentleman sitting two benches below him, but at the same time I think that, the objection which has been taken to the name of Sir James Graham, and which is also appli cable to the names of Sir J. Pakington and Sir F. Baring is not founded on any goad reason. If this were a committee appointed to inquire into the personal conduct.of those who have been First Lords of the Admiralty for any series of time, if it were a committee of incrimination, I could per fectly understand that th )se who were the subjects of a per sonal charge ought not to be put upon it ; but as I under stand it this is not a committee to inquire into any personal demerits or delinquencies, it is to inquire whether the pre sent organisation of the naval department is or is not the best adapted for the public service, and whether it would be advantageous to the public service that the Admiralty de partment should be constituted in a different manner from the present. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me that to appoint a committee to inquire into the structure and working of a complicated department, and to put upon it men who are totally ignorant of the working of that department would not be a method by which the committee would be likely to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. It must, I think, be ad vantageous that there should be on the committee persons taken from different side's of the house, who at different periods have been at the head of the department, the organi sa r tion of whi c h i s t o b e the subject of inquiry, and so far. from thinking it an objection to have upon the committee three gentlemen who have successively; andunder different tireurttstan , , , ,cs, superintend e d the - adminiifintion of - the Admiralty department, it appears to me that they areA . I THE' SUN, LONDON, ViTEDNESDAY EVENING, - MARCH 13, 1861. precisely the persons who would be useful in directing and assisting the other members in the inquiry. The same argument applies, in a lesser degree, to those who have held other appointments at the Admiralty, and the hon. member oiposite states that he did not object to those who had been Secretaries of the Admiralty and to my hon. friend who is now a lord of the Admiralty. But it appears to me that when the subject to be inquired into is the inter nal working and construction of a department, those who have been at the head of it, and who have the greatest and most complete knowledge of all the internal workings of the system, would be the most useful members. It is said that they would be very useful witnesses, and so they might be; but for witnesses to be useful those who examine them ought to know on what points the questions are to be put. But it is impossible that those who have not themselves conducted the department, and who do not know all the complicated relations of the different parts of the machine to each other can direct the examinations of First Lords in a manner most likely to bring out the truth and to arrive at a satisfactory result. I humbly submit, therefore, that the objection urged is not one which ought to guide the house, and I think the house would not be appointing a committee really satisfactory and useful for the purposes for which it is intended unless they put upon it those three names which are objected to. Mr. OSBORNE said—l am the last person to take ex ception to the name of Sir J. Graham as a member of the committee. But I object altogether to the appointment of this committee. I consider that by nominating it the Go • vernment are abdicating the functions of the executive. (Hear, hear.) The shortcomings of the Admiralty" have been exposed on many occasions, and by no one in stronger or more emphatic language than by the present Secretary to the Admiralty. (Opposition cheers) The Government have given way without saying a word in defence of the Ad miralty, but although I acknowledge that there have been some shortcomings, I never will go so far as to concede the truth of the charges against the Admiralty which have been made by the Secretary ; and I shall show presently that from the noble lord and his appointment all the abuse and misconstruction which have been heaped on the Admiralty have emanated. (Opposition cheers and laughter.) The sins of the Liberal' man in opposition have descended upon the Secretary in office. The noble lord in his vain attack on the Admiralty said that no naval man could enter the building without trepidation. (Laughter.) The country uaderstood that when the noble lord was put in his present situation a great naval reformer would overhaul the department, yet not one change has been made in the Ad ministration. The noble lord said it would be a great boon to the navy if there were open competitions for cadetships —that no youth could get into the navy except by begging, and that it was time an end was put to such a system. (Hear.) I, for one, do not approve the system of competi tion. I have never approved it. But when it was brought forward the other day by the hon. member for Derby the first person who opposed the motion was the noble lord. (Cheers.) The noble lord commenced these attacks on the the Admiralty in 18.58. In 1859 he made a most elaborate motion and a speech as full of details as the speech we have heard to-night from the hon. member for Aberdeen (Colo nel Sykes). (Laughter.) And what were his charges ? He said there had been a system of extravagant expendi ture pursued, which he maintained ought to be thoroughly looked into, and in the Statement which he was about to make the figures which he should have to quote perfectly appalled him. He accused the Admiralty of having left unaccounted for £5,000,000 of money. (Hear.) To this day no contradiction that I am aware of has been given to that statement, and to this day we are left to believe that five millions of money have been wasted by the Admiralty. I am not surprised that the hon. gentleman opposite should have proposed a committee ; but I am surprised that the Government in the teeth of these statements by the Secre• tary should abdicate these functions and not reform a de partment which so much needs reform. (Hear.) The noble lord impugned the whole constitution of the Admiralty. " He had no intention," he said " to attack individuals," — no one, by the way, ever has—(laughter)—" but he attacked and condemned the whole system. They had heard a great deal about re-construction. For himself, he had come round to the opinion of the hon. member for Norfolk—that they wanted a total re-construction of the Admiralty." The noble lord has taken his seat as Secretary, and I want to know what has become of the re-construction. (Cheers.) The department has become so perfectly odious that Parlia ment is obliged to overhaul the Executive, and toenter into nightly squabbles whether Sir B. Walker ought to be retained or mot. (Hear.) With reference to whether Sir B.Walker ought to be retained to give evidence, I must say I think his evidence is positively necessary. This committee opens the whole subject of committees appointed in this house— a quiet arrangement— (cheers) —from which all members are excluded except the member who moves for the com mittee and the gentlemen on the Treasury bench. (Cheers.) On this committee, of which five are to be a quorum, we have seven members of the Admiralty. I must say that I think in all conscience three members of the Admiralty are quite enough. (Cheers.) I have no objection to the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwich, who has come out in the character of an Admiralty reformer, but I would not put on the committee the Secretary to the Admiralty. (Hear.) God knows what awful reforms he may propose, if he is to carry out the speech of 1852. (Laughter.) The noble lord ought not to be put on the committee, because naval officers and the navy will look with great trepidation at the sweeping measure of reform which may emanate from him. (Laughter.) It is time the house should take the matter into its own hands, and if it does grant a com mittee let it be a real committee, whose reports shall not only give satisfaction to the Treasury bench, but to the country. (Cheers.) 1 must say I have no confilence in the construction of this committee. They will consume the whole session. A large blue-book will be produced, and we shall hear no snore of reform. I believe that Admiralty reform can be simply and easily managed by the Government themselves. (Cheers.) Eliminate the political element from the Board. Do not make the naval lords change with every Administration. (Hear, hear) Put the Surveyor of the Navy at the Board, and let him have a real voice there. (Hear, hear) The only accusation which the Secretary can substantiate is that the ship building of the navy is com pletely managed by the First Lord in a private room with the Surveyor. (Hear.) We have heard a great deal about a Dockyard Commission. 11? e have heard very little about their report. Why was it not laid on the table when Par liament met ? We are told that Sir B. Walker gave impor tant evidence before the Commission, but I have never heard of anybody who has seen it. (Hear, hear.) I should like to hear something about that Commission. I believe my hon. friend the member for Stoke-upon-Trent was the first chairman, and I have never heard why he resigned in a hurry. (Hear, hear.) The Secretary to the Treasury was the next chairman, and he was soon transferred to the Treasury. This Commission, which originally consisted of five members, dwindled down to three, and what their re port is we do not know. (Hear, hear) If there is to be a real committee, we must recall Sir B. Walker wherever he may be. (Hear, hear.) Whether we send the Avon to intercept him or a faster vessel, he must come before the committee. But before we decide that point let us look at the report, and see what his evidence is, and whether it opens out disclosures which I believe Sir B. Walker will make. (Hear, hear.) I believe ' the Secretary to the *Admiralty was also examined before the Commission, and failed to substantiate the charge about the £5,000,000 of money—at all events lam told so. (Hear, hear.) I hope some hon. member of the Commission will tell ns the state of the report, and when it will be laid before the house; because as to appointing a committee to inquire into the construction of the. Admiralty, it is positively wasting time and deceiving the public. (Cheers.) I hope the house will take the matter into its own hands, and not allow a sham committee to be nominated by the hon. gentleman and the Treasury Bench. (Hear, hear.) Let us have a real committee. Let us have men upon it pledged to a searching inquiry, and I believe the Admiralty will come out of it much better than it was represented by the noble lord in his celebrated Oppo sition speech. (Cheers.) For the satisfaction of the coun try let it be a fair committee. I have not the least objec tion to the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich. He seems likely to take it up in a very good, terrier-like spirit. - (Laughter.) But do not let us have the Secretary to the Admiralty on the committee ; do not let any one serve on the committee who has prejudged the question. (Cheers.) Lord GIFFORD, as a member of the Dockyard Com missionl felt bound to inform the house that they had sent in their report yesterday. He begged to correct the hon. member for Invernesi. shire. The Controller of the Navy was not the chief executive of the Admiralty with regard to the navy, but with regard to the dockyards, Sir:B. Walker bad been examined, and he thought when hon. members had read his evidence they would be perfectly satisfied it was not necessary to recall him. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI—I agree with the hon. member for Liskeard, that it is much to bo regretted that the Govern ment have not seen fit to take up this question themselves instead of remitting it to a committee. (Ifm..) When it was first 'mentioned last year I expressed my opinion that the task proposed to be - assigned to a committee was one which the Board of Admiralty ought to perform, and that we ought not to diminish the responsibility of the Government by delegating their duties to a commit tee of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) Wo have now been sitting for little more than a month. It has been paid that the month has not been distinguished by any remarkable events; but such an opinion could only be ex pressed by those who have not vigilantly observed what has took place in this house. In the course of that month we delegated to six committees of the House of Commons an examination into the whole administration of-the poor laws, into the consider4iion of the entire criminal law, into the military expenditure of the colonies, and, if I understand rightly, the committee on this subject will be called on to settle even the amount of colonial garrisons --into the Ad miralty, into the principles upon which the chief arm of our taxation is established, and upon which at this moment £1 9 ,000,000 of taxation is raised, and into the conduct of our diplomatic service. No doubt, at first sight it may ap pear very gratifying to the House of Commons to feel that they, are appropriating to themselves the functions of the Executive, but , I beg to remind the house that while they obtain some of the power of the Administration they are really accepting the whole responsibility,. ,It is quite possible—that is not a personal matter, as the hon. member for Liskeard has observed, and therefore I can refer to the hypothesis—it is quite possible that a Government with a very meek and unsatisfactory system of government at home might be carrying out a very violent and dan gerous policy abated, and with complete impunity, because all the important question of finance and administration having been remitted to select committees, the ready an swer of the Government would be, that the house must be perfectly aware of everything connected with this or that branch, because at that moment it was under investigation by a committee upstairs. Hon. members would thus be precluded from proposing any motion of censure or inquiry on important questions, such as I have mentioned, which have been remitted to committees. Therefore I think it would be well for uc, as we arc yet in the curly part of the session, to reflect upon the course into which we have so precipitately entered, and to endeavour, as far as possible to retrace our steps and revive in its full force and salutary vigour the responsibility of the advisers of the Crown. (Cheers.) If there are deficiencies in any department it is for the Ministers of the Crown to supply that deficiency. If there are errors it is for the Ministers to correct these errors. It is for them to revise and improve the various branches of the Administration. If the House of Commons has a strong opinion, founded on the facts in its possession, that any breach requires alteration, then the constitutional and proper course for the hon. members to pursue is not to demand a committee of inquiry, but to move a resolution upon the subject. (Hear, hear.) When the house has arrived at that resolution it is for the Government to ac cept or refuse it. (Hear.) If the Government refuse the resolution, we know the consequences ; if they accept it, then they are strengthened by the opinion which the House of Commons has given, and, aided and abetted by that opinion, have the power of effecting those changes and re forms which are required. The particular question before us refers to the name of a gentleman who has long been an eminent member of the house, and who possesses the respect of all parties. The arguments of my hon. friend the member for Norfolk appears t m me to tend not so much against the admission of Sir James Graham to the committee as against intrusting the inquiry to a committee of the House of Com mons. If there be anything in the objections of my hon. friend to the name of Sir J. Graham and to the names of the other two gentlemen who follow him in the list and who have filled the same office, it merely proves that the House of Commons is not the proper means of effecting such an inquiry, since the primary step is to deprive it of the ser vices of some of its ablest members, who on this question possess the best information and the greatest experience. (Hear, hear.) Therefore it is clear to me that if the house believed—as I do net believe—that an inquiry was neces sary, the proper instrument of which we should have availed ourselves would have been a Royal Commission, and not a select committee of the House of Commons. As it is the duty of the Ministry to select the men who are the most qualified to inquire into the subject, the responsi bility of the investigation would thus remain with them, and the objections to the present committee would be ob viated. I wish the Government would consider the point well. There is another committee closely connected with this question which the Government intend to ask the house to rescind. I own frankly that I dislike very much to see the house rescind a resolution to which they have once agreed. (Hear.) But when I take into consideration all the circumstances of the resolution which was passed the other night, and the propriety of which the Government are now going to impugn after dividing against it, I cannot but regret that the House of Commons adopted that resolution. At least, I think they ought not to have done so without a graver and more prolonged debate. This, however, is to be said in excuse for the House of Commons, that during the five weeks of this session they have been assuming, or pro posing to assume, the duties of the Executive, without any resistance or even remonstrance from the Ministers, and have, of course, been encouraged by their success in that direction. That is to be remembered as a reason why at a late hour and in a thin attendance the house was induced to pass a resolution which, after the calmest and gravest consideration, I feel is by no means advantageous to the public service. Of all the committees proposed this session only one was really proposed by the Government, and that under circumstances which rendered defeat almost inevi table. The committees on the consolidation of the criminal law, on the administration of the poor law, and on the di plomatic service were not opposed. The committee on the income tax was virtually not opposed, because 1 st session the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, though he was not prepared to propose a committee on that question him-• self, yet if any hon. gentleman chose to propose it the Go vernment would not resist tie motion. (" No" from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) I regret to say that such is the impression prevalent in the house. It has been men tioned to me by gentlemen on both sides, and it was under that impression that my hon. friend brought forward his motion—a motion, I may say, which I did not sanction and for which I did not vote. (Hear, hear.) Then the com mittee on the Admiralty was decided on by the Govern ment, without the knowledge of the house, and the com mittee on the military expenditure of the colonies— one of the most objectionable questions that could be in trusted to a committee—was also not resisted. I was in my place perfectliprepared to resist the motion fon it ; but the noble lord rose and gave up any resistance, and therefore to speak against it would have been useless. (Hear.) After acceding to that motion, with what chance of, success did the Government think they could resist a similar proposi tion with respect to naval affairs madelater in the evening ? (Hear, her.) Therefore I say the Government made no resistance to the appointment of those committees, which I think have been granted on unconstitutional grounds, and which, though at first sight they may appear flattering to the pride and power of the House of Commons, will in re ality only render the Ministers irresponsible in ether places, by freeing them from that responsibility which ought to attach to them in the eyes of Parliament. (Hear, bear.) The course which I should propose—l wish the Govern ment would agree to it—is this, that we should not press to-night for the appointment of this committee, which is now so much objected to ; but that, instead of a committee on the Admiralty, the Government should have a Royal Commission, and that to the reference on the subject of the Board of Admiralty there should be added an adden dum containing that portion of the reference in the motion of the hon. member for Portsmouth to which the Govern ment appear to make no objection, but excluding that pot tion which relates to the pay and position of the several classes of naval officers. (Cheers) That plan might, under existing circumstances, prove useful ; though I might still prefer that the duty should be performed by the Govern ment itself. (Hear.) There is no reason why the point now under discussion should be pressed further. Indeed, the present proceeding seems somewhat irregular, because it is felt that it is not the question of naming particular indi viduals in which the house is interested, but that of the general scope of the policy of this committee. (Hear, hear.) A rumour of the circumstance which I deeply regret has reached me. It is that my right hon. friend the mem ber for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) does not intend to serve on this committee, in consequence of the addendum proposed by the Government, and of the absence of Sir B. Walker. I have no authority to make the announcement, but if the hypothesis turn out to be a fact, it will be an ad ditional reason for the course which I suggest—(hear)—for if we are to be deprived of the services of the right hon. gentleman the member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), one of the ablest and most experienced men that ever sat in the House of Commons—(hear)—and if his colleagues follow him, and if my right hon. friend the member for Oxford shire, to whose eil'orts on this committee we look with so much interest and confidence, is not to grant us his invalu able services, it appears to me that we shall get into the very unsatisfactory position of having a weak committee to deal with a strong subject. In my opinion, nothing will so disgrace our proceedings as dealing with a strong subject through a weak committee—(bear)—and such a course must result in our failing to achieve the object which we have in view. (Hear.) This being my conviction, I would myself move that the debate on the motion for the nomination of Sir J. Graham on this committee be adjourned. (Cheers.) Mr. RICARDO said that there appeared to be consider able difference of opinion among gentlemen on the Conser vative side of the house. The right hon. gentleman who had just sat down agreed with the noble lord the Prime Minister in his desire to rescind the order for the committee obtained by the hon. gentleman the member for Ports mouth ; and, if he rightly understood the right hon. gentleman, he also wished to rescind the order for the appointment of the committee on the reconstruc tion of the Admiralty. The right bon. gentleman said he thought this was a matter• that ought to be dealt with by the Admiralty. (" No.") He supposed ho meant by the Government. (Hear•) He agreed with him that these were not matters that ought to be left to a committee of the House of Commons ; but ho wanted to know what hon. members were finding fault with in the construction o f the committee, if committee they were to have at all. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman had proposed a Royal Commission. For his (Mr. Ricardo's) part, he must ray that a commission was very much the same as a committee. He c. uld not see much difference. It had been his misfortune a few days before to sit on a commission on one of those matters, and he found that in seine respects they it ould have been able to deal better with it if they had been a committee of the house of Commons. It had been asked why he had resigned the chairmanship of the cern • mission. lle had no objection to state the reason. It had been said that it was because he could not have it all his own way. He was bound to say that there was a good deal of truth in that assertion. (Laughter.) It was because he could not have his own way that ., he did not think he could serve on it with advantage to the subject which he ceminiesion had to investigate. lie should much rather not go into this question in detail at present, because when the report was presented to the house he should have an opportuni:y of stating the reasons of his resignation. Ile was, however, bound on the present occasion to state hat one of the reasons was that after examining the noble lord the Secretary for the Admiralty- on his speech made in a former session, in which he asserted that £5,000,000 had been wasted under the Admiralty, be thought they were bound to hear what Sir I3ald win Walker had to say in refutation of what had been said by the noble lord, who had been under examinalion for three days. His colleagues did not, however, think that the time was come when such a refutation ought to he made. He was of opinion also that a different line of examination ought to have been taken, and a different course of investigation pursued He had, h'4wever, no doubt that his colleagues were right, I and that they had very good reasons for what they did ; and that they would produce a much better report than he could have drawn up. Returning to the question before the house, he wanted to know why right hon. members had to assume that right hon. gentlemen who had been First Lords of the Admiralty would have any motive for ob structing or preventing inquiry into the subject ? (Hear, hear.) He wanted to know what motive could his noble friend the Secretary for the Admiralty be supposed to have for preventing Sir Baldwin Walker from giving evidence before the committee. Why was a cry raised on that point, and why was his noble friend called to account for not stopping Sir Baldwin Walker and bringing him back to give evidence at any inconvenience to the public service? When the right lion, gentleman the member for Oxford shire said that he would not serve on the committee unless Sir Baldwin Walker were brought forward as a witness, why did not the right hon. gentleman propose to delegate to Sir Baldwin Walker all that was to be done ? (Oh 1) If hon. gentlemen only had the patience to wait until they read that gallant officer's evidence before the Commission on the Dockyards, they would see that there was no one question which he could be asked by the committee on the Admiralty that ho had not already been asked by the Commission. Why did any hon. member say that the fact of the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle having been First Lord disqualified him from serving on the committee, when every right hon. gentleman who had filled that office had in his own mind a perfect consciousness that there was something wrong in the construction of the Admiralty ? He could not vote with the hon. member for Norfolk, as he was anxious to see persons upon the committee well informed as to the business of the Admiralty. Mr. HENLEY said the hon. gentleman who had just sat down had, unintentionally no doubt, somewhat misunder stood what he stated on Friday night, when he asked his hon. and gallant friend to postpone the nomination of the committee. The hon. gentleman had an advantage which he had not. He knew what was the evidence given before the Dock Commission, which he (Mr. Henley) did not. (" No," from Mr. Ricardo.) Then the hon. member was in the same position with himself—he was ignorant of the evidence. He did not know what Sir B. Walker had said in his evidence, or whether it might have told against some one who had no opportunity of meeting it ; nor did he know but that in the committee now proposed things might be said against Sir Baldwin Walker, and as a member of the committee he would have been unwilling to hear allegations brought against him in his absence, when he had no opportunity of replying to them. lie told his hon. and gallant friend (Admiral Dun combe) on Friday night that he would consider till the be ginning of the week whether he would or would not be a member of this committee. His hon. and gallant friend asked him last night if he had made up his mind. His reply was that if matters had stood as they did last week he could have gone into the committee on the understanding that if he found any of the inconveniences which he expected would occur he should be at liberty to withdraw from it ; and he added that things did now stand on the same footing as they did last week, for a notice had been put on the paper by the Government, which would add to the inquiries of the committee a new and a very large subject, viz., the pro motion of retirement of the officers of the navy. (Hear.) He had voted against that subject being referred to any com mittee, and that was an additional reason which operated upon his mind in determining not to be a member of the committee. (Hear, hear.) Many persons had said, withre ference to this committee, that it was entering upon inqui ries which would not end in one session; while some said it would probably go:through two sessions. There might be some exaggeration in that ; but certainly no committee could hope to consider the wide subject of the promotion and retirement of the officers of the navy and the large ques tion of the constitution of the Admiralty in one session. (Hear, hear.) He had therefore come unwillingly to the conclusion to ask his hon. and gallant friend to withdraw his name from the committee. As to the question brcught before the house by his hon. friend (Mr. Bentinck), he thought it would be a misfortune not to havethose members on the committee who were best informed as to the affairs of the Admiralty ; but, at the same time, looking at the 15 members of which the committee was to be composed, he thought the Admiralty element was a very large one, and he should like to see it somewhat lessened. (Hear, hear.) Lord J. RUSSELL—I am ready to admit that there is great public inconvenience in the appointment of a great • number of committees, and especially when any of these may be said to interfere with the functions of the Execu tive. At the same time, it is to be observed that there is nothing which makes a Government so odious as opposing itself to inquiry. (Hear.) It is always said in such cases that there is something to conceal, that the Government is conscious of some faults in the performance of its duty, and therefore is anxious to resist inquiry. (Hear.) On the other hand, There is nothing in the nomination of a com mittee of inquiry which in any degree pledges the house to any particular course of conduct. But the right hon. gen tleman the member for Buckinghamshire seems to infer that the Government have too easily or too willingly given in to the appointment of certain committees that have been lately agreed to by the house. The first committee proposed was one on the income-tax, the object - of which was to lighten the burden on trades and professions and increase it on the land. The Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed that com mittee. He had given no pledge, as the right honourable gentleman supposes, to support such a committee. All he said last session was that if it was the general wish of the house to have a committee this year he would not stand in opposition to it. (Hear, hear.) There was another committee proposed with respect to colonial military expenditure ; that was not an unprecedented proposition. I remember that a similar committee was appointed when Lord Derby was Secretary to the Colonies. I sat on that committee with Lord Derby. It was named with the consent of the Government, and for two sessions entered into every detail of military ex penditure in the colonies. (Hear.) Now, though it would be objectionable in principle to have committees year after year sitting on such subjects and inquiring into the conduct of the Executive Government, yet an frOm time to time into particular departments of the Government, and after a considerable number of years has elapsed, cannot be regarded as an unconstitutional course. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to be the general wish of the house to have a com mittee on the army expenditure of the colonies, and it was not opposed by the Government, though my noble friend (Lord Palmerston) took care to state, before agreeing to the committee, that it was not likely to be of any public advan tage. (Hear.) Then there is the committee the order for which my noble friend proposes to rescind to-night. That committee was opposed by the Government, and they divided the house upon it. (Hear, hear.) Now, with regard to tne committee which is under our consideration at this mo• ment, I have always understood that it was the wish of the house generally, and of the public generally, that there should be an inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, with a view to consider not the merits of any particular person who has served on that Board, but for the purpeso of ascertaining whether its constitution was such as enabled it usefully to superintend the naval affairs of the country. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says the inquiry ought to be by a Royal Com mission. tut if the Crown had been advised to appoint a Royal Commission, every one would have said that the Government had condemned the construction of the Ad miralty, and that no other question but the best substitute for the present Board of Admiralty could occupy the Royal Commission. I, for one, could not have given that advice to the Crown. The Boat d of Admiralty, I dare say, have faults like other boards, but I have not been convinced that we could have a better machinery for the performance of the duties of the Admiralty. It may be that there is some mode by which the navy may bo better governed. It the house entertain that opinion, I can understand that the Govern ment should be willing that an inquiry should take place— an inquiry, however, which has nothing to do with the ex ercise of the executive functions, but only as to the consti tution of the body that shall exercise the executive func tions. (Hear.) The hon. and gallant admiral proposed that a select committee should be appointed " to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the various duties devolving thereon; also as to the general effect of such a system on the navy." Now it is quite ob vious that a general inquiry into the system and constitu tion of the board has nothing to do with the merits of the particular persons who have served upon that board. I think I am right in supposing that the right hon. gentle man would not have objected to such a committee if the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) had moved for it. If so, I do not see why ho should object to the committee when moved for by the hon. and gallant admiral. (Hear.) The committee is not appointed to inquire into the conduct of past First Lords, Ad the right hon. gentleman named upon it are able men, and their opinion will be much more valuable than that of members who have had no experi ence. I say that those who have been First Lords of the 1 Admiralty ought above all others to be named upon such a connnittee. (Hear.) Nor do I see why we should not name the committee at present, or why the debate should be adjourned. If the house of Commons had chosen to address the Crown to appoint a Royal Commission, then the objection which I have named to such a commission would not exist, f r the appointment of a commission would not then be the spontaneous act of the Crown, but would be made at the desire of the House of Commons. The house, however, has chosen to have a committee, and the three right hon. gentlemen whose names come first on the list ought especially to be on such a committee. (Hear, hear.) Admiral DUN CO ÜBE said it seemed that everything he heard on Friday he had to forget on Monday, for, when he , had cause to complain of want of courtesy on the part of the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Pakington), his right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli) said, " Do not visit your indignation on him, but on myself, for it was at my instigation that my right hon. friend gave notice of his intention to move for such a committee." (Hear, hear.) Now it seemed a com mittee was wrong (cheers), and that a commission ought to be appointed. Now, he for me had no great confidence in lioyal Commissions. He believed that a committee of that house, properly constituted, was a much more efficient tribunal. The hon. member (Mr. Baillie) said he had no confidence in him, but the lion. member must be of a dif ferent constitution from himself if he would take so much trouble for what was to be a mere sham, after all. There were so many applications to be on such a committee, and the disappointment of those whom the mover was unable to put upon it was so great, that he was by no means die posed to undertake so much trouble in vain. If the amend ment were carried the committee would l e virtually shelved, and if the house adopted it ho should beg to be absolved from sitting upon the committee. He ought, perhaps, to apologise to his right hon. friend (Mr. Henley), but he did not understand his refusal to serve upon the committee to be quite final, and he was so anxious to have the assistance of his right hon. friend (cheers) that he had not removed his name when perhaps he ought to have done so. The hon. member for Liskeard said that the manner in which com mittees oZ that house were proposed was by a very question able arrangement. He believed that the appointment of committees ought to be quietly arranged among the various parties in the house; for nothing could be more unseemly than the quarrels, such as were new taking place, over the names of particular members. (Hear.) He deprecated the admission of party feeling into a committee of this descrip tion. (Cheers.) He was therefore glad that the noble lord (Gifford), who was upon the Dockyard Commission, had borne him out in saying that the evidence of Sir B. Walker was not necessary. (Hear.) If Sir B. 'Walker's evidence was necessary, why were not Admiral Milne and Admiral Martin, who had formerly been on the Board for many years, also recalled ? He believed that there was ample material at present in this country for conducting the in quiry with advantage. (Cheers.) Mr. BRIGHT—I rise to protest against the theory of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks, that the house has not a right to inquire into the administration of any department of the Government. (Hear, hear.) When the Government happens to be not very competent to perform its duties we usually have many committees, and I recol lect that no Government conceded committees more freely than that of which the right hon. gentleman was a member. (A laugh.) Can any one doubt that it is desirable to have an inquiry into the constitution of the Admiralty ? It may be matter for consideration whether that inquiry shall be conducted by a commission, or a Cabinet inquiry, or a com mittee; but I have heard from high officials of the Admi ralty that it is just that sort of Government where there is not a particle of real responsibility, and that although it was a Board responsible for £12,000,000 of expenditure, yet that no one could put his finger on the man who ought to have arrested was e or directed expenditure to snore pro fitable channels. (Hear, hear.) If, then, an inquiry is to be made, I agree with the noble lord (J. Russell) that it is impossible to have a tribunal more efficient and more competent than a fairly chosen committee of this house. (Hear, hear.) But the question is whether this committee is likely to be such a body. I agree with the hon. member for West Norfolk that it is not so constituted. (Cheers.) Ido not object to the name of Sir James Graham. He is not here, and therefore I have the less hesitation in saying that there is no man more competent to be of service on this committee than Sir J. Graham. (Cheers.) He does not always do what I think he should do on committees, as hap pened in a committee on which I sat with him last summer. (A laugh.) But he knows as much as any one on this parti cular subject, and he will be anxious to have it adjusted to the satisfaction of the house. But, not content with Sir J. Graham, we have two other First Lords on the committee, and four other members who have been in that particular branch of the service. And it is known to every member of this house, and I have seen repeated instances of it, that when you get half-a •dozen men together who have been connected with a particular department there is a strong bias among them, I will not say to defend any one, for here no one is attacked, but to defend the general system which they have been concerned in working. (Hear.) I think, therefore, that it has got much too large an infusion of the Admiralty element. I agree with the hon. gentleman op posite in viewing this question without the slightest feeling of party—(hear, hear)—and I hope these are questions which we can approach without anything of that kind. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me that the noble lord will have discovered from what has been said to-night that there is no indisposition to the appointment of a committee, but that a general feeling does exist that these names are not the best that might be chosen, if it be intended that we shall have an honest inquiry and a real amendment. I have no objection whatever to the names of the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle and the right hon. baronet the member for Droitwitch, but I would put on that committee no other man connected with the Admiralty—none of what are called "the subs"—(laughter)—who look up to their superiors in the service " as a maiden looks up to the hand of her mistress." (Laughter.) Those right hon. gentlemen can put the pertinent questions, and can lead the committee to the proper materials for forming a correct judgment. The • noble lord proposes to rescind the resolution that was passed 3 the:other night. lum told that, if the committee were to report in favour of the view held by the hon. member for Portsmouth, it would put the country to very considerable expense, and I am therefore not disposed to feel veryfavour- I ably towards it; but if the noble lord was disposed to get rid of that resolution, I think it would have been better to do it openly—(hear, hear)—and not to have mixed it up with an entirely different question, and to have shelved it by a side blow— (hear, hear)—which will deceive nobody, and which must be rather offensive t ) the hon. member for Portsmouth. (Hear.) I would recommend that, in case the house thought this resolution ought not to be c irried out it should be distinctly rescinded—(hear, hear)—and the committee now to be appointed should be confined to the purpose—amply sufficient for any committee—with which its nomination was originally sanctioned. The right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire has proposed that the debate be adjourned. That it should be adjourned merely for the purpose of getting rid of the committee I think would be an injudicious and a weak proceeding on the part of this house; but if the adjournment be with a view of enabling the Government to frame a revised list of mem bers of this committee, although I do not think I ever be fore seconded anything which the right hon. gentleman pro posed—(laughter)—l shall be glad to do so on the present occasion. Lord C. PAGET—I must protest against the imputation on the noble duke at the head of the Admiralty and my self, of desiring the absence of Sir B. Walker—which was cast by the hon. member for Stoke. (No, no.) Mr. RICARDO said his noble friend had fallen into a most extraordinary error. In his remarks he had rather de• fended the noble lord from such an imputation. (Hear.) Lord C. PAGET—I am very sorry that I should have misinterpreted the expressions of the hon. gentleman, but I certainly did understand, at all events, some hon. member —(a laugh)—to say that we had sent away Sir B. Walker, and were rather glad of his absence. (Laughter.) I can assure the house that the noble duke was most anxious from the first to keep Sir B. Walker at home, and even communicated with him in reference to the possibility of obtaining a command at home. The hon. member for Lis keard seemed to accuse me of having been the firebrand who originated all this discussion. Mr. OSBORNE—(Hear, hear.) Lord C. PAGET—I can assure him that he entirely wrongs me. I never accused the Admiralty, or any re presentative of that department, of anything save with re gard to the expenditure on shipping. (Hear, hear.) I think he said that I was in favour of a reconstruction of the Admiralty, and had stated so to this house. (Mr. Osborne —Hear, hear.) I deny that I ever said anything which could bear this construction, except on one occasion, when my gallant friend Sir C. Napier having moved for a committee for the reconstruction of the Admiralty, at the end of a speech which I made with regard to naval expenditure, I made use of the expression that I was fast coming round to the view of the gallant admiral. (Laughter and hear, hear.) That was by no means a direct statement that I was in favour of that view. (Oh, and hear, hear.) My proceed.. ing towards Sir B. Walker have been very much misrepre- sented. In the remarks I made I had no personal feeling towards him or any gentleman. I merely called attention towards a vicious system, and to the want of proper super vision of the accounts. Mr. B. OSBORNE—The five millions ? Lord C. PAGET—The five millions had reference to a statement which I made as to the expenditure on shipbuild ing, and what I conceited it ought to have been. I may mention that when the noble duke the First Lord of the Admiralty came into office, he immediately agreed to the issuing of a commission to inquire into the shipbuilding accounts. I know no more of what the report of that com mission contains than the hon. member for Liskeard, but we shall have it before us, and I am content to abide its terms. If it should state that the accounts are satisfactorily kept, I shall admit that I was wrong; but if the contrary should prove to be the fact I shall have no reason to regret having called the attention of the house to the subject. ( Hear, hear.) I positively deny that in doing so I was actuated by any other motive than that of a desire to benefit the public service. (Hear, hear.) Sir 7. PABINGTON (who rose amid cries of " divide") said the hon. member for Norfolk had so framed his pro posal as to deprive it of any personal character, and to rest it wholly on public ground. As he anticipated little from the proceedings of that committee beyond laborious duty with very little satisfaction, he likewise should be very glad to be exonerated from attendance, especially as from the sh..rt time that ho had held office at the Admiralty his presence was of comparatively, little importance. B ut from the high station and long experience at the Board of Admiralty of Sir J. Graham, he must say that if that right honourable baronet were not to be a member, and if Sir Baldwin Walker were not to be a witness, the committee would become an absurdity which the house would de well to avoid. (Hear.) If he himself were nominated he should not refuse to act, but should do so, with the same reservation that had been made by the right hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire, so strong was his opinion as to the impropriety with which Sir B. Walker had been allowed to leave England on the very eve of the appointment of the committee. He confessed that a com mission :would, in his view, have been the best mode of conducting this inquiry, and he had given a proof of his sin cerity last session by moving for a commission, Ho thought there would, moreover, be a constitutional difficulty in re ferring to a committee of the House of Gonfalons the ques tion of the pay of the navy. (Hear, hear) If, as was pro posed, the questions of promotion and retirement in the navy were referred to the same committee which was t consider the constitution of the Admiralty, he thought this ought to affect the construction of that committee and fora ed an additional reason for delay in its nomination. Lord PALMERSTON . did nut think there was sufficient reason for the adjournment of the debate. The house was full, and in good position to determineas to the constitution of the committee. With respect to the names, his opinion was that the names selected were the name of persons per fectly competent to conduct the inquiry, and in reference to the observations of the hon. member for Liskeard, he must observe that the only way in which the names for a com mittee could be selected was by communication out of the house between the different parties taking an interest in th matter. (Hear, hear.) If it was thought that the official element preponderated too much, that objection might be 'obviated by adding two or more members to the committee, so as to alter the proportion. With regard to the motion for rescinding the order for a Select Committee on Navy Pro motion and Pay, it appeared that hon. members were gene rally satisfied that an inquiry into the pay of officers cf the navy was not a desirable inquiry foe the house to make— (hear, hear)—and he therefore anticipated general concur rence in the motion for discharging the order. With re spect to an inquiry into the system of promotion and retire ment, he did not admit that that would be too great an addition to the labours of the present committee, but if it wo,e, the committee might be reappointed next session. However, he thought the committee would have no diffi culty inundertaking that inquiry and making a satisfactory report, before the conclusion of the session. Mr. DISRAELI said he would not press the motion for adjournment of the debate. With regard to what passed the other night, he was under the impression that a com mission was out of the question, and he was therefore willing to take a committee. He was perfectly prepared to support the Government in the proposed change in regard to the resolution moved the other eveningby thehon. mem ber for Portsmouth. Mr. JACKSON suggested that the nomination of the committee should be postponed until the evidence taken by the commission appointed last year should be in the hands of members. Tne motion for the adjournment of the debate was then withdrawn, and the nomination of the committee on the Board of Admiralty was proceeded with. The names of Sir J. Graham, Sir F. Baring, and Sir J. Pakington were agreed to. On the name of Mr. Henley being read, Mr. HENLEY expressed a wish that his name should be withdrawn, for, as another subject was proposed to be added to the labours of tho committee, he might not feel equal to the second inquiry. Lord PALMERSTON trusted the right hon. gentleman would allow his name to remain, and if he found more to do in the committee than he could undertake he could at any future time withdraw his name. Mr. HENLEY, on that understanding, allowed his name to remain in the list. The following names, completing the list of the com mittee, were then agreed to :—Mr. Henley, Lord C. Paget Mr. Corry, Admiral Dancombe, Sir H. Willoughby., Mr. Beamish, Mr. Finlay, Mr.Beptinck, Sir J. Elphin stone, Mr. Stansfield, Mr. Philipps, and Mr. Whitbread. NAVY PROMO ZION AND RETIREMENT. Lord PALMERSTON then proposed the following mo tion :—" That the order (ith of March) for the appoint ment of a select committee to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the royal navy, and the pre sent pay and position of the several classes of naval officers, and to report what changes therein are desirable, with a view to the increased efficiency of the naval service, be road and discharged." He said that the house seemed fully agreed as to the inexpediency of appointing a committee to inquire into the pay of officers. It was evident that if the committee were to resolve to recommend an increase of pay for naval officers an application would then be made to in crease the pay of sailors, and an increase in the pay of the navy would lead to an increase in the pay of the army and of all the civil branches under Government. Thus the house would be launching into additional expenditure, the result of which could not be foreseen. (Near.) No doubt these officers might deserve greater remuneration than the state of the finances could afford, but it must be remembered that part of the reward which the gallant defenders of the country received for their devotion to the public service consisted in the estimation in which they were held in their position in society and in the respect which individually attached to them. Knowing the opinion which the great majority of the house entertained with regard to the vote come to the other evening, it was unnecessary for him to urge more arguments in support of the resolution he now moved. He quite agreed that it was an exceptional case to reverse upon one night a decision come to on another ; but in a matter involving such grave consequences to the public interest the house was justified in discharging the order which had been made. With respect to the other part of the inquiry, respecting promotion and retirement, the committee just nominated to inquire respecting the Admiralty could extend their investigation to that matter if the House thought fit. Sir J. E LP HINST ONE said that on the previous evening the hardships of the naval service were so well understood that the Government could not keep a house to defeat hie motion. Now, however, the noble lord had mustered his forces and fell back upon a constitutional principle, which he had not previously urged against this committee. He should submit to the dictum of the house, because as a pri vate member, he had no power to oppose it; but at the same time he did not see how the committee which was to be appointed could inquire into questions of rank and re tirement without to some extent dealing with that of pay. This inquiring into the constitution of the Admiralty had been brought before the house in a most extraordinary manner. He, in common with many others, thought that an inquiry of so important a character ought to have been mentioned to the house upon the first day of the session. So far was that from being the case, however, that it was not until his right hon. friend the member for Droitwich placed his motion upon the paper, that the motion of the bon. and gallant admiral the member for the East Riding, of which he had given notice last year, was brought forward. Had not this delay taken place the inquiry might have been commenced early in the session. (Cheers.) The Commit tee would then have had the advantage of the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker,who had now been conveyed from the country in rather a doubtful manner. He should do his duty as far as he could as a member of this committee ; but he did not believe that constituted as it was it would have the confidence of the country. (Hear, hear.) He was glad to hear that members were to be added to it, and he should claim the right of proposing those members. (Oh, oh, and Hear, hear.) The committee for which he had moved and which he had carried had bsen merged in that of his hon. friend the member for the East Riding, and he therefore claimed the right to name four members of the committee. Major EDWARDS had voted with the majority the other evening and saw no reason to regret the vote which he then gave. He hoped that the committee which was to sit would devote special attention to the case of the 100 cap tains who had been placed upon the reserved list, the bar gain with whom had been broken, and who had, in fact, been betrayed by the Admiralty. Mr. CLAY said that the majority obtained by the hon. baronet the other evening arose from the fact, not as he appeared to suppose, that the Government could not get a sufficient number of gentlemen to vote against a popular motion, but that a large number of members left the house because they thought it unlikely that the hon. baronet would divide, and impossible that he should find a majority to support him. (Hear.) So strongly was the unconsti tutional nature of his proposal to refer the question of pay ing the navy to a committee felt by a great number of gen tlemen on that side of the house that it was decided that A motion should be made to discharge the order, and, with the sanction of many of his friends, it was his intention to have proposed such a motion. (Hear.) That intention he only abandoned on the previous evening, /hen he found that the noble lord had undertaken the task. Had the mat ter remained in his hands he should, with the concurrence of his friends, have moved the discharge of the whole older, and not of only a portion of it. (Hear.) Mr. CONINGHAM, as one of the majority the other evening, thought that the members who voted for the com mittee of the hon. baronet were justified in that course by the language of the Government. The grievances of the navy were not denied, and no hope was held out that they would be redressed. Captain TALBOT was sure the officers of the navy would in disappointed if the house were to rescind the resolution at which it arrived the ether evening. He trusted that, at all events, the hon. and gallant member for Portsmouth would be allowed to nominate four additional members to serve on the committee. Admiral DUNCOMBE hoped the noble lord at the head of the Government would not press the. second resolution of which he had given notice, because, if he did, the house might lose the services of two of the most efficient members of the committee. Sir J. PAKINGTON would acceda to the proposal slow before the house on the understanding that th© noble lord was acting in good faith with respect to his second reso lution. Unless he received an assurance to that effect he would not consent to the present motion. Lord PALMERSTON did not know what the right hon. gentleman meant by asking whether he was acting in good faith. The right hon. gentleman had not condesoended to explain. It was his intention to move the second resolu tion of which he had given notice. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. PAKINGTON apologised to the noble lord for having used the words "good faith." It was far from his wish to give offence to the noble lord. All he had meant to say was that he felt some doubt, from certain expres sions used by the noble lord, as well as from the remarks; of the hon. and pliant member for the East Riding, whether the noble lord might not have been pexsuaded to abandon his second resolution. (Hear, hear.) The motion was agreed to. Lord PALMERSTON then moved :—" That it he an instruction to the select committee appointed to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the various duties devolving thereon, also as to th e genera l effect of such system on the navy, to consider the present system of promotion and retirement in the Royal Navy, and to report their opinion thereon." When the SPEAKER put the question there were sonto cries of "Xo," the House divided, and the numbers were, — For the motion Against it Majority .. —63 The orders of the day were then disposed of, and The House adjourned at half-past 1 o'clock. M ~! LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG. at No. 112, Strand, Painter, at TIIE SUN Office, No. 112,Strwind. in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of 11111il1 :II • Wednesday, Match 13, 1561. • • T 7 T r - ; ~: r ~ ~ ,