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

SELECT COMMITTEES.

Mr. W. EWART moved that the number of members
constituting select committees be reduced—except where it
shall seem good to the house to extend their number—to
seven, or nine members ; and that they be named by the
committee of selection, who shall choose 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 two leading principles
which he wished to combine were to increase the responsi-
bility of public committees, and to insure 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 should consist of only
nine, or seven members. He certainly thought this change
would invigorate the action of their committees.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said he entertained some doubt as to
the policy of the principle upon which 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
of selection to select from the house a small number
of persons who were called upon to make a declaration
that they had no interest in the matter to be brought
before them, an 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, and the five members would be utterly
helpless if they had nol the assistance of counsel. But when
his hon. friend propose to extend :that system to the con-
stitution of public comnittees, he (Sir G. C. Lewis) must
impress upon him that the two cases were wholly dissimi-
lar. In the case of lublic committees the members must
themselves be their oNvri counsel and conduct the examina-
tions and sift the evidmce. It was also usual to place on
them strong partisans on both sides knowingly and inten-
tionally for the purpose of eliciting the truth by the conflict
of opinion, whereas on 1, private bill committee they ad-
visedly excluded all inerested persons. He thought the
present mode of framin3, public committees was perfectly
reasonable. They put on them persons who represented
opposite and conflicting interests, generally some member
of the Government, andsome 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 tvo subjects erttirely 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 thoight that if the committee of selec-
tion had the appointment of members to serve upon public
committees, it would present 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 frori Mr. EWART in reply, the motion
was negatived without adivision.
KYARD MANAGEMENT.

Sir F. SMITH called attention to the report of the
commissioners appointe4 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,
however, an
so long as the existing system should continue. He dis-
claimed,y 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 vez), 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 Carlislevand 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 admiralle report. The hon. and
gallant gentleman was proceeding to quote some passages,
when the house was csunted, and as there were but 36
members present, the house adjourned at a quarter past
eight.

PARLIAMENTARY COMIIIITTEES.

BOARD OP 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. rakington, 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
reply to question's by Sir Michael Seymour his
grace said—l don t see that there could be much
difference between the Working of a board and the
working of a council. I fancy the first lord can
form a board whenever he desires, and do not see
what advantage would result from changing the
the Whether
name.„Members are members of .a
council or members of a board, the first lord must
employ them much in the same way. For instance,
in all questions connected with stores there is one
lord who has the management of that department,
and the first lora has to arrange the details with
him.

Sir M. Seymour—With reference to giving a
more permanent character to the beard,
.I think
you have expressed saonm
arrangement
opinionrra
n gem e
nas t
mightto the
lienacdo
tno-
Lenthieantctehe incoming
such
first lord would have to act
gS the same opinion ?
with those vi, ho had been chosen by a Government
n
must give him authority
over all those under him. You must not put under
him persons whom he cannot remove.
oTth
teo act p entertainingukproperly ()omerset—Yes. To enable the first
lord you
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—It 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 wet 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 oue 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 generally ?
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 visitdd 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 tiosition I have mentioned ; but it would be
inwise to make the first naval lord take that part
')f the business as a matter of course.

Sir M, Seymour--With regard to payments
of money at seaports and the arsenals, are the
WOW* §lll)lnitted, for inspeetieu before the ex,

penditure is allowed, or is there a limit drawn
so that in matters of a local character the autho-
rities in the yards may exercise their judgment and
report periodically ? Must the proposal of the
superintendent to purchase any article be submitted
to the Admiralty whether the cost be considerable
or only a few shillings ?
The Duke of Somerset—lf the superintendent
wishes to purchase anything in a town I suppose it
would be something in the nature of a store, and
ought to be obtained from the storekeeper. I think
it objectionable that money should be spent in
dockyards in the way referred to, unless in case of
great necessity and emergency, without any com-
munication with the Admiralty.
Lord C. Paget—Looking at the enormous cost of
the building of ships, can you say whether an in-
quiry by officers whose sole business should be to
criticise the drawings, the lines, and every other
detail of the vessels, assisted by a council composed
of scientific men, or master shipwrights in the dock-
yards, and others—would not that, on the whole,
give the public the best guarantee that can be
afforded that these matters should be duly inquired
into before the public are put to the expense of
building these new and costly vessels ?
The Duke of Somerset—When a new and expen-
sive vessel is to be built as one of a class of such
vessels as we are buildinLt at present, it is desirable
in every way we can to obtain information. I think
an inouiry that will give us further knowledge is
most -desirable in any way. But there is great
difficulty in obtaining the sort of information we
require. Say we require to build a ship of such a
class as has never been tried at sea, and men who
are not naval men, and men who are naval men, are
unable to give us any accurate knowledge of what
will be the condition of the ship when it is built,
there is no experience to guide us. But I think it
would be most desirable that every inquiry should
be made on the subject ; short of this, that when
the vessel is ordered, if it is ordered to be .built and
the lines ordered by the Comptroller of the Navy,
he should not be required to give the lines or re-
commend the ship unless he thoroughly approves
of it. The lines adopted by any committee should
not be forced upon him. But, short of that, any
inquiry is desirable.
Lord C. Paget—Now,"as to inventions. Do you
not think that inventions should be submitted to
the Comptroller, and that a committee should be
appointed to examine and report upon inventions ?
The Duke of Somerset—There is now a commit-
tee, consisting of two or three officers, at Somerset-
house, to whom inventions are referred. It is very
desirable to relieve the Comptroller from the duty
of considering the great number of inventions that
are sent in to the Admiralty. The question of iron
shipbuilding should be submitted to a committee of
competent men.
The committee then adjourned.

INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX.
This committee met again yesterday—Mr. Hub
bard in the chair.

Mr. Newmarch, secretary to the Globe Insurance
Company, continued his evidence from the previous
day's sitting of the committee. He said he had
not the slightest doubt that if the income tax was
modified on the principles suggested by the chair-
man's plan, the public would be much more satis-
fied with it—not that he believed the public would
ever be quite reconciled to an income tax. He was
entirely against a graduated income tax, because it
was taxing a man for doing good for himself and
good for others ; it was punishing prudence and
virtue. If the English funds were subject to an
income tax of 20 per cent. that would no doubt affect
their value in every market, both home and foreign.
After some evidence as to life insurance, the
witness, in reply to questions by Mr. Cardwell, said
he thought a different mode of classification and
collecting the income tax to that at present in
existence might be adopted, which would not be so
open to objections as the present law. It was his
opinion that taxes which were generally levied
upon articles of consumption were more favourably
regarded by a scientific eye than any income tax
could. Supposing the case of a landowner of an
entailed estate, who, having children, for whom,
if he was a reasonable man, he would make
some savings ; he did not propose to take into
account at all whether that man had children or
not, and he would therefore make no exemptions in
such cases. Speaking of a class of gentlemen in
this kingdom who own entailed estates, no doubt,
in some cases, they made savings for their younger
children ; but in many cases the younger children
were otherwise provided for. It was his opinion
that the pressure of taxation was more bearable by
persons holding land than persons whose income
was in the shape of money or was acquired by in-
tellectual labour. Taking the cases of a country
clergyman with a living of £2OO a year and a
sleeping partner in one of the wealthiest firms in
the metropolis, the difference appeared to him to
be this—the sleeping partner was liable to all the
exigencies of trade, and to have all his property
swept away by bankruptcy, to none of which con-
tingencies was the country clergyman liable.
The witness, in reply to questions by the chair-
man, gave some further evidence, after which the
committee adjourned.