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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMON—(YEsTERDAY.)
SUPPLY.
On the bringing up of the report of the ruo'..( n for sup-

rude of !,!i;

-
most suspicious about it. It was acknowledged
by the Chaneell, Exchequer that the four gentle-
men were -hi, difficulty, b he got over that
difficulty, ay., ehing more about it. He (Mr. B.
OsbOrne) did q in the eppointment of the com-
_mittee whiele ie. iv called for, different grounds would
be proceed el el en, and different men selected. The
house wee'. ' well, in his judgment, to refer this master
to the c :`; e: of selection ; but do not let them have any
endenee a. aush up the question, or have a member dis-
sentin r the verdict after it had been given. It was
very 1., • xtu.iate that 'they should have gone into the Dover
case .1. ell., How did it stand ? Next week a committee
would be struck to try the Dever petition; and only see the
lairyrieeh of difficulties in which they would be involved
with this inquiry going. on pendiag a commission. If the
house wished its judgments to be respected they must have
no such scenes 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
hon. 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 4e these
were naturally distasteful to Governments, but they should
not bo suffered to remove their full investigation from the
public eye. (Hear.)
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said that after the astonishing
statement which the hon. and gallant gentleman had made
with regard to him, he 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 less
to knew on what ground the assertion could have been made.
It wait 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 io 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 matter of 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
ho 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 gentleman oppo-
site (Mr. B. Osborne), he would observe that the four mem-
bers to whom 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 conamittee would have a political character' and
that it would have to try the character and conduct gf the
late Government. He was fortified in that impression 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, heving 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 judicia
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 information 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
extravrigant 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. Ha 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 he was always,
put put down 'by the shibboleth of ` the public out_ of d ors.
out of d
membersoors , but
like himself found themselves brought into a perfect whirl-
Ntheewre hweahsada atigmr great
a tf
for sepveeertyl:l3)ri everything. Independent public
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 alsa 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. He '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 himeelf 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 dispositiori. 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 some 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 hon.' 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 coin-11-lace were not unanimous in the -view
they took with. regard to the scope of their inquiry, at all
events no gentleman who differedefrom the rest of the corn-
mittee thought proper to place his dissent on record ; it is
algo quite clear that a great majority of the members enter-
tained no doubt whatever as to the nature of their dutieti s,
and I am bound to say, as a question affecting the pracce
of the House of Commons, filet it is very inconvenient that
members of a committee who cal ert ain opinions with re-
gard,to the proper limits of their inquiry which differ from
those of the majority, and /eh ieh differ from thde coure
which the committee is acenelly pursuing, shoult
_remain
silent in the conimittee —(11( a: Lear)beinves rained by
the fear of imputatio'ue fr-et patting their visewtos
teirneorme-..
cord, and then, not having etn•e should vie
mittee in an intellieibe f:
mplaints of the conduct
afterwards make
appeals to the house. I .iake co
of that committee. of gentlemen towards the
me to be hardly p.le ea the part.
hear.) Such a course appears to
theybelong.
merits of this partioular case—the term;
With regard to the
f • Ul which
other members of 'the committee to' which
of the reference the line omg ry was Pursued
—I confess ti.at the right hon. baronet the member for
which he ha.s token. The
Droitwich, el-ho introduced thisrsr
ifesltiomn,ayl
bmeupsetrsmayittiendthtoe
moat temperate man
Commons is generally in favour of
Tinerihag•eiaew
say so, tofel)2,liea
opinion e. ••
the coarse which a committee has pursued. Ido not speak
icirerourso
of
now 0 •
f the judgment which they came to, for that is a per-
fectly proper matterreview and question
for
but it i 4 perfectly impossible for a committee appointed
under 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
;nein 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 thosse,
Governments for the manner in which they had acted. Ho
w
is .
is it possible for a committee required by
this house to in-
quire into the manner in which contracts were framed or
modified by her Majesty's Government, to make their
inquiry thorough and searching if they are restrained from
pronouncing a sentence of either praise or blame on the men
by whom those contracts have been so framed or modified.
The right hon. baronet very fairly andthat the
inquiry justly says
inquiry was one into the wisdom and prudence of the con-
duct of the Government, and if that the committee found
that their conduct had been deficient in wisdom and pru-
dence, no, doubt they ought to
with regard to it. But although
their sentiments
express
he admitted that they
might declare their conduct not to have been prudent, they
were not from that circumstance infer I )
The right hen to any blame. ( Tear.
. 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 metion which they have
made 'of this branch of the subject, because the committee
having, by a very large majority, arrived at the conch': ion
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
officers wi'h 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 net only acted with equity and fairness, but
that they adopted it with a view of precluding any supeei-
tion of inviduous 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 that
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 be 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
of constraint.--it is a matter ei constant rOlgreACO M