The Sun.
London, England, 1860-01-31 00:00:00

Most suspicious character about it. It was acknowledged
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the four gentle-
men were his greatest difficulty, but he got over that
difficulty, and said nothing more about it. He (Mr. B.
Osborne) did hope that in the appointment of the com-
mittee which was now called for, different grounds would
be proceeded upon, and different men selected. The
house would do well, in his judgment, to refer this matter
to the committee of selection ; but do not let them have any
endeavour to hush up the question, or have a member dis-
senting from the verdict after it had been given. It was
very unfortunate that they should have gone into the Dover
case at all. How did it stand ? Next week a committee
would be struck to try the Dever petition ; and only see the
labyrinth of difficulties in which they would be involved
with this inquiry. going on pending a commission. If the
house wished its judgments to be respected they must have
no such manes as they had had that night. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman volunteered to be examined be-
fore the committee which he now distrusted. The right
hen, member also gave a distinct denial to the fact that he
had ever given a letter to Capt. Carnegie to go down and
contest Dover, but his memory must have been singularly
defective on that occasion. For his own part, he (Mr. B.
Osborne) was exceedingly grateful to the right hon. gentle-
man for having got rid of him out of Dover. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) But what was the effect upon the public
with regard to the votes on Parliamentary committees in
that house ? The decision which the country was taking
was this, that committees were not to be trusted. If any
would support him, he would oppose altogether the nomi-
nation of this committee by the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, for if they wished that the judgment of this commit-
tee should give satisfaction they should entrust its appoint-
ment to the committee of selection. Let it not be a matter
of selection by those two benches. Questions like these
were naturally distasteful to Governments, but they should
not be suffered to remove their full investigation from the
public eye. (Hear.)
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that after the astonishing
statement which tho hon. and gallant gentleman had made
with regard to him, be felt bound to say that no agreement
had been come to in this matter between the Chancellor of
the Exchequer and himself, and he was altogether at a loss
to knew on what ground the assertion could have been made.
It was usual to inquire in the first instance whether an
hon. member could act upon a committee if nominated, and
he had been so consulted ; but no contract or agreement
had been entered into by him to sit on the committee, but
not to vote. Some hon. members had stated that the com-
mittee had travelled out of its legitimate terms of reference,
but he did not take this view himself. They were charged
with renewing the • contract without sufficient public
grounds, and suspected of having done so from party and
corrupt motives. He knew that he had pronounced for the
contract on public grounds, and he was anxious that those
grounds should be inquired into. It was not sufficient that
a member of a committee implicated In the matterof inquiry
did answer the questions put to him. In courts of law a
witness so circumstanced would have counsel to ask him
questions founded upon a knowledge of the facts, but if they
had no member on a committee who knew the facts—such
Members being excluded from adesire to obtain impartiality
—it was impossible to elicit the case which ought to be
made out in justice to those who were interested in the re-
sult. They had to choose, therefore, between two evils ;
and, though he confessed he did not see his own way be-
tween them, it appeared to him that the exclusion of those
who were acquainted with the facts was opposed to reason
and common sense. (Hear.)
Mr. HOPE said that as a member of the late committee
he could state that its resolutions were voted unanimously,
and that there was no formal discussion. In reference to
what had fallen from the hon. and gallant wentleman oppo-
site (Mr. B. Osborne), he would observe that the four mem-
bers to wheat he had alluded did not influence the decision
of the committee, because they were in the minority.
Mr. H. HERBERT observed that if it were intended to
appoint the members of the last committee, there should be
some distinct understanding of exactly how far the committee
was to go, and how far the words of reference covered the
inquiry. He took great interest in the debate of last session
on the subject, and he certainly did derive the impression
that the committee would have a political character, and
that it would have to try the character and conduct of the
late Government. He was fortified in thatimpression by the
speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks,
who made use of these words, " If there is no prospect of the
proceedings at the Dover election being examined info this
session, it would not be fair to deprive the members of the
late Government of an opportunity that presented itself of
going into an investigation of all the circumstances of this
case. So entirely was he impressed with the view he had
stated that, although, he was a member of the committee,
yet, laming been prevented from serving by having to at-
tend an election committee, when he was requested to be
present at the drawing up of the report, he said he did not
think it was right when a member of a committee had not
heard the evidence that •he should assist in drawing up the
report.
Lord LOVAINE said—lf this committee had a judicial
character, there was great danger in allowing the character
of persons who had no opportunity of defending themselves
to be affected by it.
Capt. L. VERNON observed that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer said he believed that the whole of the committee
were unanimous as to the description of informatian they re-
quired. He (Capt. Vernon) was an independent member of
the committee, and as far as he was concerned he was no
party. to that unanimity. He thought that the committee in
entering rather upon the personal than the public question
departed from its line of duty ; and that when the house
granted the committee it was certainly not with the idea that
it would be made to serve a political purpose. When the
committee devoted nearly the whole of its time to an inquiry
whether Captain Carnegie was justified in coming to the
extravagant conclusion that when Mr. Churchward offered
him his support, he meant thereby to seduce him from
Admiralty virtue, it stepped aside from its particular
duty, and it postponed the interests of the public to
those of individuals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
might say that this was not the time, nor the place either,
to make the objection. He could only say that he took
both the time and the place, but he was put down by
being told that the public out of doors were anxious about
the Carnegie and Churchward case, and that the public out
of doors must be satisfied. He ventured to say that he did
not think they had anything to do with the public out of
doors, and that what they had to do was to attend to the
business with which they were concerned. He said that at
different times during the investigation, but ho was always
put down by the shibboleth of "the public out of doors."
Now he had a great respect for the public out of doors, but
there was a time for everything. Independent members
like himself found themselves brought into a perfect whirl-
pool of party struggle, and it was obvious that there were
those on the jury who ought to have been in the witness-
box. He could also see that some who were ever nice and
scrupulous as he thought them, would refrain from voting
on matters which concerned them, and there were others
not quite so scrupulous, who would be restrained by no
such fanciful ideas. Hei intended to call the attention of
the house to the report on the 7th of February.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I was
sorry to hear my hon. friend the member for Liskeard say
that it was the desire of all Governments to hush up these
matters—for my hon. friend has himself been a member of

various Governments, and one is led, therefore, to suppose
that he is giving reminiscences of his own sentiments in
such cases. (Laughter.) For my own part I beg leave to
disclaim such a disposition. I am desirous that this matter
should be fully inquired into. My hon. friend gave loose to
his imagination to an extraordinary extent in what he said
about soma secret understanding between me and my hon.
friend opposite, with whom I had once the honour of being
intimately connected in a public capacity. There never was
any such understanding between us. I don't believe I ever
exchanged a single word with my right bon. friend on the
_ _

subject-except across this table: A. fertile imagination is
certainly sometimes a most inconvenient thing. (Laughter.)
This question appears to me a very simple one. It would

- ,
seem that if the committee were not unanimous in the view
they took with regard to the scope of their inquiry, at all
events no gentleman who differed from the rest of the com-
mittee thought proper to place his dissent on record ; it is
also quite clear that a great majority of the members enter-
tained no doubt whatever as to the nature of their duties,
and I am bound to say, as a question affecting the practice
t
of the House of Commons, that it is very inconvenient that
Members of a committee who entertain opinions with t -
pad to the proper limits of their inquiry which differ frerom
those of the majority, and which differ from the course
lheinethi it ht eh
ecommitteee is
La( actuallyh
epaurr) s_u
gd b
shouldrestr a
ine remainsiy
the fear of imputatiois from putting their views upon re -
com-
mittee and n then,
an
intelligible
havingform,
statedsr
na s theirhenld. viewsafterwards to the
make
appeals
ompelhamateseonfrstehaeppcoeanrdsutcet
of that committee. to h t house,
ande m
a r
,haekaer
.) Such
amt
he
et
ro bem ehardly fairo tohne teheempma
ttt
eoef
tgentlemen
theytow a
br de
iso
nthe
other members of the committee to which they bekng.
With regard to the merits of this particularc
was pursued
terms
of the reference and the line of inquiry which
—I confess that the right hon. baronet the member for
Droitwich, who introduced this question, I must say in the
most temperate manner, appears, if I may be permitted to
say so, to be in error in the view which he has taken. The
opinion of the House of Commons is generally in favour of
the course which a committee has pursued. Ido not speak
now of the judgment which they came to, for that is a per-
fedi,- proper matter for review and question by this house ;
but it is perfectly impossible for a committee appointed
ander an order of reference such as was passed in this in-
stance, altogether to avoid what may be called personal
matter. Undoubtedly the inquiry was one directed in the
main to the policy of certain measures, and therefore I think
it would be an inconvenient course to refer the subject to
the Committee of Selection ; but although such was its cha-
racter, it was not simply an inquiry into an abstract matter
of policy, but into the conduct of executive Governments ;
and collaterally and in a secondary manner it was, of course,
a question involving praise or blame of the conduct of those
Governments for the manner in which they had acted. How
is it possible for a committee required by this house to in-
quire into the manner in which contracts were framed or
inmoqdniifiryedthbay herrang Majesty's Gov
h and
dseareh ingifertn. tore makestrained theirfram
pronouncing a sentence of either pr: • me on the men
by whom those contracts have been so' or modified.
The right hon. baronet very fairly and says that the
inquiry was one into the wisdom and p en. ce of the con-
duct
edn that
ef
ntthien committeen
df opurnj
that otheirthe
conduct Government,
had
dence, no doubt they ought to express their sentiments
with regard to it. But although he admitted that they
might declare their conduct not to have been prudent, they
were not from that circumstance to infer any blame. (Hear.)
The right hen. baronet also finds fault with the committee
for having alluded to "corrupt motives." It appears to me
that the committee, instead of being censured, deserve
rather to be commended for the mention which they have
made of this branch of the subject, because the committee
having, by a very large majority, arrived at the conclusion
that the Dover contract was made without sufficient inquiry
into the grounds of the claim for its extension, and having
gone on to express their views with respect to it, they after-
wards, in a spirit of equity and of consideration for those
whose conduct they had been condemning, inserted a para-
graph declaring the opinion of the committee that, notwith •
standing an error had been committed, no ground existed
for the imputation of corrupt motives. The resolution was
thus worded :—" It further appears to the committee that
neither at the Admiralty nor at the Treasury were the
officsrs with whom thedecision rested, influenced in regard-
ing the renewal of the contract by any corrupt or political
motive." That passage appears to me clearly to show that
the committee not only acted with equity and fairness, bat
that they adopted it with a view of precluding any suposi-
tion of invidueus interference that might otherwise be en-
tertained. I believe, moreover, that the constitution of the
committee was well adapted for the purposes of the general
inquiry for which it was appointed. I grant you Plat
the mixture of what may be called personal mat-
ter is productive of much inconvenience, and
is to be regretted when it comes incidentally
under inquiry and cannot le made the subject of investiga-
tion by itself, without entailing other and very serious in-
conveniences ; but this cannot be charged upon us by way
A isAtta of owita4t rocurrcuco