The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-02 00:00:00

r.,70‘

kind that the noble lord complained of ; and he must tell
him again that there was not that he knew of any custom
or any practice by which any member of that house who
proposed to give a notice was bound to go across the house
and tell the party that such was his intention. He must tell
his noble friend that he knew of no such practice—(hear,
hear)—and so far from his having anything to apologise for
he must tell his noble friend that it was he who owed an
apology to him (Sir J. Pakington) for discourtesy. (Hear,
hear.) His noble friend laughed, but he must tell him that
it was contrary to all custom for members to cross the house
and communicate their intentions and he must tellhis noble
friend also that he had not departed from any custom, but on
the contrary, that he had observed the custom of the house.
He did:not unlerstand, then, upon what ground the noble
lord came forward and made such a statement, but he denied
altogether the imputations of the noble lord. He had
made a public statement in the house of the motion which
he intended to bring forward, and of the motives which
led him to withdraw the previous motion of which he had
given notice, and he did not think it necessary, therefore,
to give any further notice on the subject. He should not
now address the house but for such observations as those
made by the noble lord ; and having once publicly given
notice of the course he meant to pursue, it was wholly un-
necessary for him, in his opinion, to say anything further
on the subject. He would certainly give his vote in sup-
port of the motion. He stated last night that there
was a feeling out of doors that there ought to be an
inquiry into the administration and constitution of the
Board of Admiralty (hear, hear) and that there should
' be an inquiry into the defects of the system, and that the
board should be conducted upon a different system—a
system which would involve a greater degree of respon-
sibility. (Hear, hear.) He believed that the absence of
that responsibility was the principal cause of the necessity
for a change (hear, hear) and that constituted the
principal object of the inquiry. There was one other
reason for the inquiry, and that was an opinion that he
himself strongly entertained, of the position which the
First Lord of the Admiralty occupied on the present
occasion. How far honourable gentlemen opposite
might concur in his views he could not say, but his
opinion was, that the position which the First Lord of the
Admiralty occupied at the board was not the position
which the First Lord of the Admiralty ought to hold ;
and he here thought it necessary to explain why he thought
so. The hon. member for Colchester had stated that, in
his opinion, the First Lord of the Admiralty was
"supreme," and that such was the opinion of therright hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle. He was exceedingly
sorry that the right hon. baronet was not now in his
place; but when he heard those opinions attributed to him,
it brought to his recollection the evidence of the right hon.
baronet before a committee of that house on the subject
of the administration of the Admiralty. The right hon.
baronet here read the evidence of the right hon. baronet
the member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), given before
a committee of the house, showing clearly, in the words of
the right hon. baronet, that the First Lord was not supreme,
that ho merely gave his opinion when there was any
different expression of views, and that the other naval lords
had, in their opinions, an equal power. He merely presided
at the board, but was not supreme. As the Board of Admi-
ralty was at present constituted the position of the First
Lord was often one of embarrassment, and such as a Mini-
ster of the Crown ought not to be subjected to. He should
have preferred the appointment of a Royal commission for
the purpose of inquiry, to that of a select committee of the
house, but the Government having sanctioned the latter
course he should not offer any opposition. The constitution
of that committee was an important consideration, and he
was glad to hear the noble and gallant lord the Secretary
for the Admiralty, express an opinion that hon. members
who had occupied the post of Lords of the Admiralty should
not be excluded from acting on the committee. He hoped
the committee would proceed with its duties in a spirit of
prudence and caution and in a manner calculated to condtice
to the improvement of the public service. There was no
doubt that public opinion required considerable changes
should be made in the constitution of the Admiralty depart •
went.

Lord C. PAGET said when he expressed an opinion that
the right hon. gentleman the member for Droitwich was
disqualified from occupying the chair of the committee in
consequence of the position he had occupied at the Admiralty
nothing possibly could be farther from his intention than in
any manner to reflect on the personal honour or reputation
of the right hon. gentleman.
Sir F. BARING explained the constitution and working
of the Board of Admiralty. The first lord was responsible
to Parliament for the working of the board, and there was
no doubt that, practically, he had his own way in the con••
duct of the public business, and ruled the board of that
department. Great caution, in his opinion, ought to be
exercised before they pulled to pieces the Board of Admi-
ralty, which was put together after the model of the Board
of Ordnance, constituted by the authority and on the advice
of no other man than the Duke of Wellington; and a Finance
Committee nAninated for the purpose. The Board of Admi-
ralty was in no respect responsible for the harbours of
refuge. They merely carried out the recommendations of
a Royal Commission appointed on the suggestion of the
House of Commons. The Board of Admiralty, again, was
censured for the smallness of the work at Keyham harbour,
when the French Government was carrying out works of
magnitude at Cherbourg and other placer along the French
coast, but in respect of this matter the Board of Admiralty
was blameless, and merely had that done which the House
of Commons ordered and voted. One arguMent against the
present constitution of the Board of Admiralty was the con-
stant politicill changes of the First Lord. He did not see
how they could; prevent this unless they got rid of the re-
sponsibility to Parliament of the Minister at the Admi-
ralty. If they chose to have a permanent Minister, not
responsible to Parliament, they might change the consti-
tution of the Admiralty, but then they would change the
constitution of the country and abandon the powers of the
House of Commons. The substitution of a Secretary of
State for the First Lord of the Admiralty would afford no
more security than they had under the existing state of
things. He believed the permanent officers gave the very
highest satisfaction, because they brought their expe-
rience to assist the political officers, who were always liable
to be changed. The right hon. gentleman who had just
sat down said his great object was to get responsibility,
but they had it at that moment, because the First Lordwas
practically responsible to Parliament. , Have him respon-
sible, and do not go lower. They had him as a responsible
Minister, but if they throw it on subordinates they did
away with it altogether. It was now very fashionable to
talk of having a council to assist the board, which was to
have a power in cases of an increase of expense or a dimi-
nution to set aside the opinions of the First Lord. They
were to have those powers for five years, and for his own
part he really could not see why the House of Commons
could for a moment grant such an authority to any body of
persons. _ _ _

- Mr. HENLEY approved of the motion, and was glad to
hear that the Government also had consented to the ap-
pointment of the committee.
Mr. BENTINCK wished to make a remark as to the
composition of the committee. He thought that as one of
the objects of the committee would be to inquire whether
those who had conducted the naval affairs of the country
were qualified for the performance of their duties, none of
the members or es-members of the Board of Admiralty
should be on the committee.

Mr. CO NINGHAM contended that the responsible
Minister of the Navy ought to be in this house, instead of
being, as was the case at present, a member of the other
House of Parliament. It was also the fact that the War
Minister was a member of the House of Lords. To cap the
system it was only necessary that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer should be a member of the other house. He
had merely risen to point out the fact that the heads of
important departments were all in the other house, and
that it was inconvenient that they should be so.

Sir CHARLES WOOD admitted that the whole tone
of the discussion was fair and candid. He did not
anticipate that there would be a change in the Board of
Admiralty, nor did he think that a case had been made out
for any such change. Complaints had been made as to the
changing character of the Board of Admiralty; but what
was the fact ? Why, that the principal officers of the board
had been in that office for several years, notwithstanding
the change in the Administration. He at the same time
must say that a change in the heads of the department
consequent upon a change of Government was desirable,
and tended to the benefit of the public and the public ser-
vice. He never knew a First Lord shrink froia carrying
into effect an arrangement which he believed was calculated
to improve the efficiency of the public service, and under
those circumstances he did not think they would get a
greater responsibility from the First Lord under a different
system than they now had. A divided authority they
would find would only involve them in new difficulties. The
First Lord should have the assistance of a board of naval
officers, without which his office would be no value, and he
trusted that the committee to be appointed would give effect
to that principle in a manner that would be the most con-
ducive to the interests of the public service.
Mr. DISRAELI said he was in favour of granting the
committee, not that he apprehended it would be important
As regarded any great changes it would be likely to effect.
Like other connnittees which had sat to consider subjects
on which the public attention had been strongly directed,
it would throw light oz.' the working of the Board of Admi-
ralty as at present constituted, and show that great misap-
prehension existed with respect to tii.? naval branch of the
public service. He owned he should be sorry if one of the
recommendations of the committee was that the he;..fl of the
board should in future be a naval officer. If they carne
that resolution, the next would in all probability be to take
that great department out of the control of the House of
Commons. They had got it there now, and he recom-
mended the house to keep it there. That was a task which
they would not find it so easy as they might perhaps ima-
gine. (Hear, hear.) With that scheme for turning the
chief of the Admiralty into an appointment purely pro-
fessional, they would be paving the way for losing that
command over the naval affairs of the country which they
now enjoyed, and the actual loss of which they would very
much deprecate. He agreed very much with what had
fallen from the hon. member for Brighton with respect to
the position which the two great services of the country
occupied with regard to Parliament. It was certainly un-
iintliPttc tUfq Ntt4 tin Apay and the 1341757 yme 49t ;9-