The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-24 00:00:00

terpoise to France, but an intimate alliano with that coun.•
try, and free intercourse founded on conmercial treaties.
In the case of Hungary the principle of ion-intervention
had been violated, not only in this matte, but in the case
of the Kossuth notes. The noble lord h& even gone so far
as to tell Sir James Hudson to keep an eye on Kossuth.
The noble lord at one time forgot that hi had done so, but
now he remembered.

Lord J. RUSSELL-No, Ido not. (4aughter.)

Mr. DUNCOMBE—Another miserate attack on Kos.
suth was the refusal to let him be director of a railway, lest
b e might thus get means for fomenting a evolution in Hun-
gary. After one or two further observatins the hon. mem-
ber concluded by declaring that he shou.l divide the house.
Mr. B. COCHRANE denied that he noble lord had
shown any predilection for the interestslf Austria in Italy.
The house then divided, when the nunbers were :
For the motion
Against it
SELECT COMMITTEES.

Mr. W. EWART moved that the lumber of members
constituting select committees be redued-7except where it
shall seem good to the house to exterd .their number—to
seven, or nine members; and that tley ha *named by the
committee of selection, who shall cheese such members on
account of their acquaintance with the subject submitted to
their consideration, and shall adopt measures for insuring,
as far as possible, the constant attendance of such members
in the several committees. The tw) leading principles
which he wished to combine were to iterease the responsi-
bility of public committees, and to irsure the regular at-
tendance of members on them. He maintained that if they
reduced the number they would increase the responsibility.
He proposed that the committee of selection should appoint
the members, and that the committees 3hould consist of only
nine, or seven members. He certainly thought this change
would invigorate the action of their ctmmittees.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said he entertained some doubt as to
the policy of the principle upon whict his hon. friend had
founded his motion. The principle appeared to be this,
that the mode of appointment and the proceedings of public
committees should be as much as possible assimilated to the
committees on private bills, and elections. An essential
difference, however, existed between the nature of the
questions referred to private bills committees and election
committees and the questions referred to ordinary public
committees. The questions which a private bill committee
had to consider were of a judicial nature. A definite
question was referred to the decision of the private
committee, and it was the business of the committee
or aolooti.n fn aeleet from the hen.>
of persons who were called upon to make a declaration
that they had no interest in the matter to be brought
before them, anti they were also required by standing
order No. 96 to attend regularly from day to day. They
were in fact in the position of jurymen empanelled to
try a question before the court, and the question was
brought forward and entirely managed by counsel, who
substantiated their statements by calling and examining
witnesses. The course of proceeding before election com-
mittees was similar, ani the five members would be utterly
helpless if they had not the assistance of counsel. But when
his hon. friend proposed to extend :that system to the con-
stitution of public committees, he (Sir G. C. Lewis) must
impress upon him that the two cases were wholly dissimi-
lar. In the case of public committees the members must
themselves be their own counsel and conduct the examina-
tions and sift the evidence. It was also usual to place on
them strong partisans en both sides knowingly and inten-
tionally for the purpose of eliciting the truth by the conflict
of opinion, whereas on a private bill committee they ad-
visedly excluded all interested persons. He thought the
present mode of framing public committees was perfectly
reasonable. They put on them persons who represented
opposite and conflicting interests, generally some member
of the Government, and some leading gentlemen belonging
to the party for the timebeing opposed to the Government.
It appeared to him that his hon. friend had with the best
intentions confounded two subjects entirely opposed to each
other, viz., the constitution of public and private commit-
tees. For these reasons he was unwilling to agree to the
proposal.
Mr. CROSSLEY thought that if the committee of selec-
tion had the appointment of members to serve upon public
committees, it would prevent that squabbling and acrimony
which occasionally went on in the house as to whether one
member should be struck off and another substituted.

After a few words from Mr. EWART in reply, the motion
was negatived without a division.
DOCKYARD MANAGEMENT.

Sir F. SMITH called attention to the report of the
commissioners appointed to inquire into the control and
management of the dockyards. He had given notice to
move that it was not expedient to entrust the Board of
Admiralty with the expenditure of the whole of the large
sum proposed in the naval estimates for the current year,
so long as the existing system should continue. He dis-
claimed, however, any intention of casting reflections on
the present members of the Board of Admiralty ; but a
system so faulty in itself could not be carried out to advan-
tage by the ablest men. The country had to thank the
noble lord who represented the Admiralty in that house for
the examination which had taken place into dockyard
management. The commissioners had conducted that
inquiry in a very painstaking and impartial manner. They
put twelve thousand questions to the witnesses, and among
the witnesses were the Secretary to the Admiralty, the late
and present First Lords, the right hon. gentleman the
member for Carlisle, and many experienced practical men,
including officers of every dockyard in the kingdom. He
had read all that evidence, as well as the conclusions of the
commissioners in their admirable report. The hon. and
gallant gentleman was proceeding to quote some passages,
when the house was minted, and as there were but 36
members present, the house adjourned at a quarter past
eight.

pABLIA2IIENTARY COMMITTEES.

BOARD Or ADMIRALTY.

The committee appointed to inquire into the
constitution of the Board of Admiralty met again
yesterday—Mr. Henley in the chair. Sir J.
Graham, Sir J. Pakington, Lord Clarence Paget,
Mr. Corry, Sir M. Seymour, Admiral Dun-
combe, and nearly all the other members of the
committee were present.

The Duke of Somerset was again examined. In
Sir Michael Seymour his
that there could be much
difference between the working of a board and the
working of a council. I fancy the first lord can
gracereply t
so aid questions stdioonn:s t bze si
he desires, and do not see
result from changing the
Whethername. members are members of a
council or members of
lord form
what a a
d board,an advantage
a ge
would
the whenever
a board, the first lord must
employ them much in the same way. For instance,
in
n all
im of that department,
connected with stores there is one
lorda and the
twhheofi rhasst questionslt
oh
the
has to anageltent
arrange the details with
him.

---
Sir M. Seymour—With reference to giving a
more permanent character to the beard, I think
expressed some opinion as to the incon-
such an arrangement might lead to
youveniehnacveewhich
—that the incoming first lord would have to act
with those NS, ho lute been chosen by a Government
samegotmheerset—Yes. To enable the first
lord
opinion ?
properly you Must give him authority
over all those under him. You must not put under
not
Thee
t no t Derut
act entertaining
n of Sn
him persons whom be cannot remove.
Sir M. Seymour—Do you see any sufficient
reason why the political character of the board
should not be abolished, and its duties be executed
by the first lord and the secretary ?
The Duke of Somerset—lt must be of a political
character so long as Parliament has the control
which it now possesses. You must have members
in Parliament for carrying on the Parliamentary
business. Before the Reform Bill passed it was
always easy to have two or three inferior members '
in Parliament. Since. the passing of that bill the
same facilities have not existed, and the position of
the members of the board becomes more important.
Sir M. Seymour—Do you think the inconveni-
ence might not be met by the secretary being in
the House of Commons ?

The Duke of Somerset—Yes ; but accidents may
occur which may render it impossible for the secre-
tary to attend. I recollect one instance in which
the secretary was absent, and the first lord had to
move the estimates.

Sir M. Seymour—Are you of opinion that the
political character of the secretary has any injuri-
ous influence over the naval service generp,lly ?
The Duke of Somerset—l think not at present.
The tendency at present is to diminish political
feeling.
Sir M. Seymour—With respect to the dockyards,
which are only visited at certain periods of the
year, do you not think it would be advantageous if
you had some officers to send on other occasions
when Parliament is sitting ?
The Duke of Somerset—There are one or more
members of the board who visit the dockyards. I
cannot admit there is a want of more frequent in-
spection.
Sir M. Seymour—Would it not be an advantage
if the distribution of the Admiralty business were
more fixed, and determined more exactly, as well
for the despatch of business as for the discipline of
the office ?

The Duke of Somerset—The first naval lord
should have one set of duties, the second lord an-
other set of duties, and the third another. It is
desirable that 'the naval member should transact
the business with which he is conversant. There
is, for instance, the great question of the naval re-
serve, which, if not checked, will become a grow-
ing expenditure. It is necessary to have an
officer at the Admiralty who has been in control
of the coast guard, and who is competent to
advise the board. It is desirable to place him in
the position I have mentioned ; but it would be
unwise to make the first naval lord take that part
of the business as a matter of course.

Sir M, Seymour--With regard to payments
of money at seaports and the arsenals, are the
Accounts submitted for inspection before the ex.