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

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
£19,000,000 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
of 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. But
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 the general
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.