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

other hand, there is nothing in the nomination of a corn

raittee 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 wa-
one un the 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 inquiry 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 purpose 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. But 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 Board 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 be better governed. If the house
entertain that opinion, I can understand that the Govro,..
rnent should be willing that an inquiry s}..tdd take place—
an inquiry, however, wb;,i. 2.as nothing to do with the ex-
executivefunctions, 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 3. Pakington) had moved for it.
If so, I do not see why he 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. All the right hon. gentleman named

upon it aro able men, and their opinion will ba much more
valuable than that of members who have had no experi-
ence. I say that those who have been First Lords of the
Admiralty ought above all others to be named upon such a
committee. (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.)

- • -,
_to so
Admiral DUNCO MBE said it seemed that everything he with the same reservation that had been made by the right
heard on Friday he had to forget on Monday, for, when he hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire, so strong was
had cause to complain of want of courtesy on the part of the his opinion as to the impropriety with which Sir B. Walker
right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Pakington), his right hon. had been allowed to leave England on the very eve of the
friend (Mr. Disraeli) said, c( Do not visit your indignation appointment of the committee. He confessed that a corn•
on him, but on myself, for it was at my instigation that my mission :would, in his view, have been the best mode of
right hon. friend gave notice of his intention to move for Conducting this inquiry, and ho had given a proof of his sin-
such a committee." (Hoar, hear.) Now it seemed a corn- cerity last session by moving for a commission. He thought
mittee was wrong (cheers), and that a commission ought to there would, moreover, be a constitutional difficulty in
tion of the pay of the navy. re_
be appointed. Now, ho for ORO had no groat confidence in forting to a committee of the House of Commons the ques-
Royal Commissions. He believed that a committee of that (Hear, hear ) If, as was pro-
house, properly cmstitutod, was a much more efficient Posed, the questions of promotion and retirement in the
tribunal. The hon. member (Mr. Baillie) said he had no navy were referred to the same committee which was t>
confidence in him, but the hon. member must be of a dif- consider the Constitution of the Admiralty, he thought this
ferent constitution from himself if he would take se much ought to affect the construction of that committee and firmed
trouble for what was to be a mere sham, after all. There an additional reason for delay in its nomination,
were so many applications to be on such a committee, and Lord P.A.LI\IEPSTON did not thjn' there was sufficient
the disappointment of those whom the mover was unable real ; .
A for the adjournment of the debate. The house was
to pnt upon it was so greati that he was by 119 AO' .-"sy full, and '
good position to deterunn. eas to the constitution
....r..._,,...
..... tu in