SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.

HC Deb 01 March 1861 vol 161 cc1240-69

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE

, said, he rose to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. He felt that the debate on the previous night upon the Resolutions of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth had in a great measure forestalled the discussion that would otherwise have taken place that evening. It would therefore be unpardonable in him to occupy at any length the attention of the House. The Resolutions moved by his hon. and gallant Friend certainly occupied considerable time in their discussion, but led to no result. He should be as well pleased if the Motion he had the honour to submit were accompanied by less discussion and led to more practical results. In bringing forward the Motion he could not but advert to the conduct of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), and, as he thought, his great want of courtesy towards himself. It would be in the recollection of the House that towards the close of the last Session he had the honour to submit to the consideration of the House a Motion similar to the present. His hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty opposed that Motion on the ground that three or four different Committees either had been, or were then, sitting with reference to naval affairs; that the officers of the department had been much occupied before those Committees; and that at that period of the Session no practical result could be obtained. He bowed to the force of those arguments, and asked permission to withdraw his Motion, with the announcement that he should renew it at an early period of the ensuing Session. But the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich on that occasion opposed the Motion, and, he was afraid, even at the cost of his dinner, remained to vote against it had it gone to a division. In that debate the right hon. Baronet made use of these words:— I should be sorry to see such a question handed over to a Select Committee of this House, the great majority of whose members would probably be wholly inexperienced in the details of this important department. That was exactly the position of the right hon. Baronet when he became First Lord of the Admiralty; and, instead of calling to his assistance the same number of naval officers his predecessors had done, there were considerably fewer naval officers at his Board than under recent Administrations. The Board consisted of four Lords and three secretaries, including the private secretary, whom he considered a very important personage, which, with the First Lord and the Civil Lord, made nine in all. The Duke of Northumberland had eight naval officers, and the Duke of Somerset six naval officers, but the right hon. Baronet had only four naval officers; he therefore appeared to coincide in the opinion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) that naval officers were not the proper parties to manage the affairs of the navy.

MR. LINDSAY

explained that all he had said was that naval officers were not always the ablest administrators in these matters.

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman had said that any clerk at £100 would do the business of the dockyards as well as the Admiral Superintendents. [MR. LINDSAY: No, No!] He could assure the hon. Gentleman that naval officers did not entertain any such disparaging opinions of the owners of the merchant shipping of the country. After the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich had used the words which he (Admiral Duncombe) had quoted to the House, he could not hare supposed that within ten days after the opening of the Session, he would give notice of a Motion for the appointment of a Committee. He wished to tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he was concerned to know the fact, that for the first ten days of the Session he was prevented from coming down to the House by an indisposition such as he hoped he (Sir John Pakington) might never suffer from. The right hon. Gentleman had given notice of the Motion for the Committee in nearly similar words to those of his (Admiral Duncombe's) notice, without having troubled himself to inquire whether he intended to bring his Motion forward again; although it might be in the recollection of the House that he had stated he would bring it forward this Session, unless he should see some reason for altering his opinion. Having disposed of that part of the subject, he might next say that in renewing the Motion he did not intend to cast any blame on the present Board of Admiralty. He believed they had been diligent and earnest, and that they had done the best they could with the cumbrous machinery which they had to work; but he was of opinion that the existing state of things in the naval department of the public service was not in unison with the wants of the country. His desire was to see whether a competent Committee could not devise some scheme to alter or modify what was now the system of conducting the naval affairs of this nation. When he had the honour of submitting the Motion last Session, he stated his opinion that it would be an improvement if the naval affairs of the country were placed under a Minister of Marine, with a Board or Council constituted in a manner different from that in which the Board of Admiralty was constituted at present. He presumed that the Minister of Marine would be a Cabinet Minister, and, therefore, a political individual; and he thought that if three experienced naval officers were to form his council a very good department might be constituted. They might be placed at the head of the various departments, and receive a certain measure of power and responsibility. In various pamphlets published since last Session similar views were expressed, and the Resolutions of his hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone) tended in very much the same direction. Indeed, every one who had bestowed attention on the subject seemed to think that a Minister of Marine, with a Council, would be an improvement on the present system. There could be little doubt that the subject of our naval administration was uppermost in the public mind. They were told that there was great dissatisfaction—almost disaffection, on the part of many of the officers of the naval service, and that the crews were in a state of insubordination. They were also informed that there was great difficulty in maintaining any discipline on board ship. He for one should heartily rejoice if the prediction uttered by the hon. Member for Bedford on the previous night should be verified, and if, when the black sheep were got rid of there should be an improvement in the discipline; but there could be no doubt that there was widespread dissatisfaction on board our ships. What the causes were it was not for him to say. Probably no man living knew what they were, but he thought that every endeavour should be made to satisfy the officers and crews of one of the finest services in the country. Of course it would be necessary to take into consideration the whole subject of manning the navy. That was one of the difficulties, for hitherto the reserve had been almost a failure. It behaved those who had the management of the navy to devise a scheme which would induce seamen to enter the service, and to make them more satisfied with it when they had entered it. He should say that, in the discussion of the previous night, his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie) was rather hard on his gallant Friend Sir Baldwin Walker.

MR. SPEAKER

informed the hon. and gallant Admiral that he was out of order in referring to what was stated in the debate of the previous night.

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE

said, he thought that, whatever might be said as to the appointment of Sir Baldwin Walker in the first instance, it was rather hard to have condemned him after fifteen years of faithful service to the country, and when he was about to take his departure on a command to which he was so well entitled. He should now refer to another point. They very often heard statements in which persons decried everything English, and applauded everthing French. There was no necessity for Englishmen doing that, for the French knew sufficiently how to applaud themselves. If hon. Members would read a pamphlet lately published by a French officer they would find therein statements to show that we were always wrong, and the French always right. With reference to the appointment of the Committee, which he was told by his noble Friend opposite (Lord C. Paget) was not to be opposed by the Government, his wish would have been that no ex-Lord of the Admiralty should be on that Committee. He was aware of the great ability and of the administrative powers of the right hon. Gentlemen who had been at the head of the Admiralty, but it would have given him more satisfaction if the results of their official experience were to be elicited by way of evidence before the Committee rather than in the capacity of members of the Committee itself. However on that point it was for the House to decide. Those were his opinions. They might be worth little or nothing, but his desire in moving for this Committee was that, however it might be constituted, whoever might be on it, the most searching, most fearless, and most impartial inquiry might take place in reference to the whole of the affairs of the naval administration of this country. He desired not to impeach anything or any one; hut he would ask the Government and the House to let everything be brought to light. If it should turn out that no improvement could be effected, it would be a satisfaction to the country to know that inquiry had taken place with a view to improvement; and if, on the contrary, and as he believed, beneficial changes could be effected, then they would have ample reason to congratulate themselves on the step which he asked them to take. He believed that if the modifications and alterations which he had sketched out were effected, it would be found that greater energy and efficiency would be the result; and that if, unfortunately, the day should ever arise when the naval service were called on to protect our shores, it would not be found wanting. He begged to move for a "Select Committee 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."

ADMIRAL WALCOTT

said, he understood that no opposition would be offered to the appointment of a Committee according to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend. In fact any hindrance or obstacle was unlikely, seeing that the discontent which had long smouldered within the heart of the navy had at length communicated itself to the country, whose voice sounds too clearly through the public press to be resisted. The demand is for a more responsible execution of the duties of the Board of Admiralty. It is equally clear that this object will never be attained other than by the act of the Executive. A Royal Commission, or by a Committee, as proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend, which if any real good is to be accomplished, must be constituted of Members such as readily could be found in this House, who will patiently weigh the subject in all its bearings and impartially acquaint themselves with all its intricacies. As his hon. and gallant Friend had with equal ability and clear reasoning laid the whole matter before the House, he felt that no additional words were required to give to it support and force, but the more so as only last evening he was enabled to express his own honest and deliberate convictions, conscious of the fact that truth is great and will conquer.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

Sir, I rise on behalf of the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty, to state that, so far from any objection being offered to the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend, we shall be most happy to give every assistance in our power, in order that the very important subjects which ought to come under the consideration of this Committee shall have every possible elucidation. I need make but very few observations on the present occasion, but I think I am bound, on the part of the Admiralty, to state that, from the time at which we took office, there has been no desire whatever to shrink from any inquiry as to any branch of the Admiralty department. The noble Duke felt—and I felt and feel with him—that now, when we are in a state of profound peace, is a time to look over our military departments, with a view of adopting in them any improvements which may seem consonant with the spirit of the age. We do not, however, think that the Board of Admiralty has been guilty of such improper conduct in the administration of affairs, or has been the cause of any such disasters as should call forth the opprobrium that is too often cast upon it. That there are defects in the Admiralty I do not for a moment deny. It is important, for example, that our system of accounts in regard to expenditure on the materiel of the Navy should be improved, and I must say that the present Board of Admiralty have treated me with great consideration in respect to that matter. As a private Member of this House I felt it my duty to call attention to the expenditure that had been going on for many years in the Dockyard, and immediately on the present Board taking office, I requested my noble Friend the Duke of Somerset to allow an inquiry to take place into the subject. The noble Duke not only allowed that inquiry, but proposed that it should be conducted by gentlemen wholly independent of all branches of the Government. A Commission was appointed. I believe it will be in a condition to report in a few days. We shall then have a report pointing out where defects exist, and, at the same time, giving the department credit whenever their system has been good and wholesome. The Admiralty afterwards, on the Motion of various Gentlemen, consented to the appointment of Committees on different branches of the Admiralty business, including the gunboats, the transport service, the subject of piers and harbours, and so on. My hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Duncombe) last year, in a very moderate tone, exceedingly creditable to himself, as he has also done to-night, addressed the House on what he regarded as the defects in the composition of the Admiralty, and asked for a Committee of Inquiry. I then stated that there were at that time various inquiries going on, which occupied much of my own time and that of my colleagues, and that we thought it a very inconvenient time to appoint the Committee which he asked for. My gallant Friend did not press the point upon the House, and consented to put off the inquiry. At the commencement of the present Session the Duke of Somerset desired that I would put myself in communication with the gallant Officer, and say that Her Majesty's Government would agree to a Committee of Inquiry being appointed by this House whenever he chose to propose it. I communicated with the gallant Officer, through the hon. Member for Norfolk, in order to ascertain when it would be convenient for him to bring forward his Motion for a Committee. Meanwhile I was surprised quite as much as, I dare say, the gallant Admiral was to find that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington)—without the courtesy ordinarily displayed by Members of this House, and especially considering the terms that my right hon. Friend has always done me the honour to maintain towards me—announced to the House his intention to move for a Committee of Inquiry. My astonishment was very great, considering the post he had held at the Admiralty; for, hav- ing held that post, it appeared to me that he was not a proper man to move for, or to be the chairman of, such a Committee. I frankly told him that I should oppose his being the chairman of such a Committee, as I did not think him to be a proper person to occupy that position, just as I should not have thought myself a proper person to fill it. I think that, as we of the Admiralty are to be judged in respect of our public and not of our personal conduct, no one who has been connected with the Board should sit as Chairman of a Committee of Inquiry into our administration. My right hon. Friend withdrew his Motion, and I think that in doing so he acted wisely. I will now refer to the view which the gallant Admiral has taken of the discipline of the navy. He spoke of discontent existing among the officers, and I think I heard also the word disaffection. That there may be dissatisfaction to some extent among some of the officers of the British navy—that there may be many officers who think their pay insufficient for the services they perform—may be quite true. It is not for me to say that the navy any more than the army is a well-paid service. But I must say that the Admiralty have endeavoured, and will continue to endeavour, with the limited means at our disposal, to improve the condition of the officers of the navy. When I bring in the Navy Estimates, which I hope to do on Monday, it will be seen that we are at this moment endeavouring to improve their position. I may state that Her Majesty has graciously been pleased to increase the pay of officers in command of ships. In conclusion, I must be permitted to say on behalf of the colleagues that the present Board of Admiralty has not been behindhand in promoting improvements. I cannot but look with some pride on the passing of an Act last Session for the better discipline of the navy. That Act, though it passed through this House very quickly was the result of long and severe labour on the part of the Admiralty. In framing a new code of instructions for the navy consequent on that Act, there was also very considerable labour; and there is another subject that has occupied much of our attention—I mean Greenwich Hospital. All the world knows that the government of Greenwich Hospital has been extremely defective. My gallant Friend—now no more—(Sir Charles Napier), whose name I cannot mention in this House without expressing regret for his loss, often discussed the subject with myself, and I am bound to say that I always found him to be an honest friend to the seaman, a gallant and a zealous officer. Our first step with regard to Greenwich Hospital was to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. The result of the Report of that Commission has been, I am happy to say, the framing of a Bill which my noble Friend the Duke of Somerset is about to introduce into "another place," by which various improvements will be effected. In future the patronage of the Admiralty will be abolished with regard to the schools at Greenwich, and the whole of the nominations to those schools will be open to all who have claims to admission. I mention these things to show that, with all its defects, the Admiralty has not neglected its duty to the country, and that it has been our constant and earnest endeavour to earn the good opinion of our countrymen. I cannot agree with the gallant Admiral that the Committee to be appointed should not contain any Gentlemen who have been First Lords of the Admiralty. I should be sorry to see such men as the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), and the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) excluded from the Committee. The question is not one of party; but if the honour and safety of England are to depend in some measure on such a Committee as this, would it be wise or prudent to exclude from it men some of whose names have a world-wide reputation as regards our navy? Let me add that, whether I am on this Committee or called to give evidence before it, I can answer both for myself and my Colleagues that we will give every possible assistance in order that the inquiry may reach every detail and branch of the Admiralty.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

Although I was not surprised to hear the remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Duncombe) in reference to myself, I confess I was not prepared for the charge which my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty has made against me of want of courtesy, in not informing him of my intention to give notice of a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry. I have heard the imputation with astonishment. Instead of meeting it with anything like an apology, I meet it with a most explicit denial. My noble Friend had no right to make such an imputation. I never before heard of such a thing. I appeal, without fear of contradiction, to the most experienced Members of this House whether they ever heard of any practice by which an independent Member who thinks it his duty to give notice of a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the constitution of a great department of the Government; is bound, before he gives that notice, to consult the Minister connected with that department. In my whole experience in Parliament I never heard so extravagant a doctrine. I will tell my noble Friend that lie has treated me with discourtesy in making this attack against me [Laughter], Right hon. Gentlemen indulge in a laugh; but I do not think they will dispute what I have stated, that it is entirely contrary to all custom; and I say that if a noble Lord in a high position makes a charge of want of courtesy against a Member of this House he is bound to do it according to the practice of the House. I am sorry to be obliged to say that I was not surprised at the language of the gallant Admiral. I am sorry to say that my experience of the language and tone in which that gallant Admiral sometimes indulges prevents me from feeling surprise at the observations he has made regarding my conduct. I know that nothing is more distasteful to the House than personal differences between Members, and as I made a public statement in the House of the reasons which led me to give the notice, and of my motive in withdrawing the Motion, I am perfectly content to leave where it now stands the question whether or not I have treated the hon. and gallant Admiral with any discourtesy? I should not have thought it worth while to rise to take notice of what had fallen from the gallant Admiral but for the few observations I desire to make on the Motion itself. The gallant Admiral said this discussion had been very much anticipated by what took place last night. It is hardly necessary for me after what I stated last night to say that, if necessary, I am prepared to give my support to the Motion. I expressed, last night, my opinion that the state of public opinion out of doors with regard to this question renders it most desirable that in some shape or other there should be an inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. I stated last night that I thought the principal object of the inquiry was to devise some system by which the present constitution of the Board—the present administration, I should rather say—may be conducted upon a system which shall give more direct responsibility to the officers who conduct the system than is now the case. The hope of devising a mode of increasing the responsibility is the principal object of that inquiry. But I think there is also another reason for inquiry, and that is the opinion at least that I myself strongly entertain of the unsatisfactory position of the First Lord of the Admiralty under the present system. I speak now in the presence of right hon. Gentlemen who have had longer experience of the Admiralty than I have. How far they may concur with me I do not know; but the result of my own experience is that the position of the First Lord as the President of the Board is not that which ought to be occupied by a Minister of State filling so important a post as the First Lord of the Admiralty fills. I heard with considerable surprise last night a statement which tell from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, who in the course of his speech said that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Carlisle, had stated—

MR. SPEAKER

I think the right hon. Member is infringing the rule which forbids reference to former debates.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

It is really a matter of necessity that I should explain the reasons why I think the position of the First Lord makes a change desirable. It is supposed by some hon. Members of the House that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle, when he was before a Committee, stated his opinion that the First Lord of the Admiralty is supreme. I think I heard that expression used. I am exceedingly sorry that indisposition prevents the right hon. Baronet from being present. But when I heard that opinion attributed to him, I remembered that I myself heard the evidence to which reference was made—namely, the evidence given before the Sebastopol Committee in 1855, and my recollection of that evidence did not at all support that expression. I have referred to the evidence in the Report of that Committee, and I find the opinions of the right hon. Baronet embraced in two answers, which I am sure the House will permit me to read. The first question is this:— Is the First Lord of the Admiralty a co-ordinate part of the Board of Admiralty, or is he, like the Master General of the Ordnance, a superior officer, with power to overrule the decision of the Board? This bears on the question whether the First Lord is supreme. The answer of the right hon. Baronet is— He has no power whatever to overrule the Board's decision. When he is present at the Board he presides, and the practice is that when documents are read the First Lord presiding gives his opinion as to the answer that is to be given. If all the members are silent, the secretary notes down the answer; any member who dissents from the opinion of the First Lord has an opportunity of stating it. That at least is the mode in which I have always transacted the business. The other question was— Supposing there was a majority of the Board against his opinion, would that majority govern? In reply the right hon. Gentleman cited the opinion which Earl Spencer had expressed to him, that practically he had never found a Board interfere with the large discretionary power of the First Lord. In illustration of that, Lord Spencer told the right hon. Gentleman that on one occasion his opinion as a layman came into collision with that of the naval members of the Board on the question whether the decision of the Cabinet that Lord Bridport should strike his flag should be carried out, and that he was obliged to threaten the dissolution of the Board in order to procure the two signatures which were required, in addition to his own, to be attached to the order. Lord Spencer added, that that was the mode in which the First Lord enforced his authority at the Board of Admiralty. It may be said, perhaps, that if that power exists the First Lord is practically supreme, It is quite true, no doubt, that with the concurrence of the Crown, and of his Colleagues in the Cabinet, the First Lord may, in the event of extreme difference of opinion, break up the Board. But I think the exception proves the rule, and that the First Lord is not practically supreme in ordinary circumstances, when he can only assert supremacy by resorting to so extreme a measure. It is true, he is a member of the Cabinet, and that he conveys to the Board the opinion of the Cabinet; but he is in this painful position, that in the event of serious differences of opinion between himself and the other members of the Board, he is obliged to abandon his sense of duty on the one hand, or on the other to overrule the Board, without having in fact, any legitimate means of doing it, except by resorting to some such course as I have mentioned. Last year the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) spoke of the good feeling which had always, prevailed between himself and the naval members of the Board, and the right hon. Member for Carlisle made a similar statement. I have equal pleasure in stating that no First Lord could have acted with greater harmony and good feeling than I did with the naval members of my Board. But, however strong this friendly feeling may be, and I do not doubt in the slightest degree that it still prevails, it is impossible for five or six persons to act together for any length of time without differences of opinion occurring; and it is easy to see the embarrassing and difficult position in which the First Lord may at such times be placed. On these grounds it is, I think, very desirable that the constitution of the Board should be reconsidered, because the theory of a Board so constituted is inconsistent with the theory of Ministerial responsibility on which this House always acts. I retain, however, the opinion I have formerly expressed, that, of the various modes of inquiry, a Parliamentary Committee is the least desirable and the least convenient. I regret that the Government did not determine to conduct such an inquiry themselves, and next to this I should have preferred a Royal Commission. As, however, the Government have preferred a Committee I do not object to it, though I do not think it the best mode of inquiry. There is one point on which I feel great anxiety. It is as to the construction of the Committee. I think it most important, and I am glad to hear that it is not the intention of the Government not to exclude from that Committee gentlemen who have had experience at the Admiralty. The noble and gallant Lord (Lord Clarence Paget) says he told me he should oppose my being Chairman of the Committee if I moved for its appointment. I beg to say that the noble Lord's recollection is entirely at variance with my own. I will, indeed, confidently say that he never made any such statement. If he had, I should have told him that I see nothing in the circumstance of having held the office of First Lord to disqualify me from presiding over such a Committee. And, if I had proceeded with my notice, I should certainly not have been disposed to waive that claim which, by the custom of this House, every Member who moves for a Committee has to occupy the chair of that Committee. I think it would have been a most unwise decision to exclude from the Committee those gentlemen who know something of the subject about which the Committee are going to inquire. I do not say that those who have been at the Board of Admiralty ought to be in a majority. There ought to be various elements upon that Committee, and its members ought to be free from that partiality which need not necessarily attach to those who have had official experience at the Board. I hope that the Government will be careful in constituting the Committee, so that it may be composed of men who will enter upon the inquiry with a sincere desire to conduct it in the most dispassionate manner. I doubt, and always have doubted, whether a Parliamentary Committee is the best tribunal, and I doubt it now more than ever on account of the fashion that prevails to cry down the Board of Admiralty. There seems to be a feeling that a man who wants to write a pamphlet or make a speech cannot do better than attack the Board of Admiralty. An inquiry is desirable, and some changes may be necessary in the constitution of the Board; but I do not think the Committee ought to be led away by this fashion of decrying the Board of Admiralty. There was great force in what was said by one hon. Member, that we must recollect that under the conduct and management of this Board the navy has acquired all its glory and renown. I would also caution the House to bear in mind what has taken place in the War Office. There never was a public department that stood in greater need of improvement. When I had the honour to be Secretary of State for the Colonies, I was nominally War Minister. I said then repeatedly, both in private and in public, that the system might work very well in time of peace, but that if war came it must break down. War did come, and it did break down. During the war the Government found it so impossible to reform the administration of the army; that, notwithstanding the difficulty of making the attempt at such a moment, the Government reconstituted the Department. What has happened since at the War Office shows that it was much easier to find out the defects of an existing system than to devise a remedy; for, although that change has been effected four or five years, the War Department has not yet arrived at a satisfactory state. I trust that the Committee we are about to appoint will proceed to discharge their difficult duties in a spirit of caution and prudence. Public opinion requires that some changes should be made, and I would not have the Committee proceed in too timid or too cautious a manner. I trust they will so proceed as to give the public full confidence that their inquiry will be searching and impartial, and that it will be carried out in a manner beneficial to the public service.

LORD CLARENCE PAGET

said, he wished to explain that in objecting to the right hon. Gentleman as Chairman of the Committee he meant no personal reflection whatever upon him; considering, however, the place lately occupied by the right hon. Gentleman he thought he ought not to be the person to preside over its deliberations.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

So far as I am concerned, as having been at the head of the administration of the navy, I have no reason to complain of the manner in which the hon. and gallant Admiral has moved for this Committee; and I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Officer, by the Motion he has made, will confer a great benefit on the service. I rise to say, what no one has done before, and that is a good word for the constitution of the Admiralty Board. My own experience is that the Board, as a whole, has worked well together. The First Lord is responsible to Parliament for the conduct of the business of the Admiralty. Each member of the Board exercises a general superintendence over a certain number of departments, and is assisted by a permanent officer of considerable experience and high rank. When serious matters arise the different members of the Board communicate with their colleagues and take their decision. No doubt, on such occasions, practically the First Lord has his way. He does not come down among these gentlemen and say, "I will have my way;" but he receives the decisions of the Cabinet and the commands of the Queen, and, practically, when the First Lord thinks it his duty to insist, the junior Lords give way; at least, it was never my fate to be in a minority with my Board. Now, how is this Board formed? I am old enough to recollect the causes and reasons given for constituting the Board in its present state. The Duke of Wellington, soon after the termination of the great war, was at the head of the Ordnance. The Board with which he then acted was considered by him to be the best model for the conduct of public business. The Duke of Wellington and Lord Hardinge stated that before the Finance Committee of 1828. That Committee was composed of some of the most distinguished men of the day, including Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Herries, who had conducted the business of military and naval departments during the war. The Committee concurred in that opinion, and the Admiralty Board was formed directly on that model, and the whole of their constitution, now so unpopular, received the sanction of the Duke of Wellington and the Committee to which I have referred. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to suppose that the Board which now superintends the navy is some old, antiquated machine, which no man of common sense would ever adopt. I do not pretend to say that experience may not suggest improvements, or that we may not be wiser than those who have gone before us. I do not put it as an argument that we should not inquire and improve it if we can; but I mention it as a reason why some caution should be employed before we pull to pieces that which has been set together by some of the best men. The Duke of Wellington was no common man, and if there were one quality for which he was remarkable it was his power of organization. The Board of Admiralty follows the Ordnance Board, and the Ordnance Board was organized by the Duke of Wellington.

In the charges brought against the Admiralty I notice in some of the pamphlets which have been published that the Admiralty are made responsible for things which originated with the House of Commons. I may mention two points which are made a great deal of in these pamphlets. In a pamphlet which is supposed to come from very high authority, and to express the views of a considerable number of naval officers, great blame is attached to the Board of Admiralty for the harbours of refuge, and it is said that if the constitution of the Admiralty had been altered we never should have had these harbours of refuge. I do not say whether these harbours of refuge are right or wrong, but it is the Constitution of England you ought to inquire into if you want to alter that. They arose from a Committee of this House. An Address for a Commission was agreed to. A Commission was appointed. The Royal Commission, and not the Admiralty, heard evidence. They did not employ any Admiralty surveyors whatever. They had Mr. Rennie, Mr. Cubitt, and Mr. Walker, and when it was all settled it was handed over to the Board of Admiralty to carry out the wishes of the House of Commons. Another allegation is about the Keyham Dock. Reference is made to the French having constructed large basins and erected works such as we have not erected. But the Admiralty is not to blame for having suspended the great work at Key-ham. The facts are that a Committee of the House of Commons, which I assisted in compelling the Government to appoint, went so far as to say that they doubted if it ought ever to have begun, and that at any rate it ought to go no further. The Admiralty carried out the recommendation of the Committee, and for two or three successive Sessions Keyham was one of the stock Amendments which I had to meet; and I had some difficulty in getting money not to let the old works go to ruin. All this is now saddled on the unfortunate Board of Admiralty who had nothing to do with the matter. Let me not be misunderstood. I am not saying that the Admiralty is perfectly free from making mistakes. I am not contending that the House is not right in exercising full control over the money which it has to vote. I do not say whether the Committee was right or wrong about Keyham. But it was their doing, not that of the Board of Admiralty. There is another reason for saying that sufficient allowance is not made in estimating the conduct of the Admiralty. We hear of every fault which can possibly be found with the Admiralty, and every hole which can be picked is exposed to public view. We heat of all their faults, and a great deal more of things which are not their fault; but is there never anything wrong in private or foreign establishments? If a French naval officer were to write such a pamphlet as this he would, probably, find some difficulty in getting it published; and as to private establishments, I once said to Mr. Rennie, the engineer, "We make blunders at the Admiralty, and are supposed to make more blunders than anybody else; but are you civil engineers always right—do you never make any mistakes?" Mr. Rennie said, "Yes, we make mistakes, and perhaps as many as you do; but we are not fools enough to talk about them." If we could compare the Board of Admiralty with the French Admiralty and private establishments, it would look better than it does at the present moment. Nevertheless, the Government. I think, are quite right in granting this Committee, and in consenting to any alteration which is an improvement. It is said that great evil arises from the con- stant political changes, which necessitate a change of officials. The pamphlet to which I have referred says a First Lord's tenure is not more than a year and a-half. No doubt it would be much more agreeable to us if we could have a longer existence. But I do not see how you are to prevent it, unless you get rid entirely of the responsibility of the Admiralty Minister to Parliament. If you choose to have a permanent officer, uncontrolled by Parliament and not responsible to Parliament, then you ought to make a change in the constitution of the Admiralty; but, at the same time, you change the constitution of the country. I have seen a plan on paper proposed by my hon. Colleague. His remedy is to change from a First Lord to a Secretary of State; but a Secretary of State would go out with every political change, just as the First Lord does now. Then it was said, "We do not rely on the continuance in office of the First Lord or Secretary of State, but the subordinates would be permanent." I have ventured to compare the amount of change under the proposed system and under the old system, and I find in thirty years it would be as 103 changes against 107, or in favour of the present arrangement. If you have nothing but permanent officers, you must of necessity change them after a certain time. You cannot allow them to remain in office without an infusion of new blood, or you could not expect them to follow the changes of the day. One advantage of the present system is that, as there are frequent changes of the Board and of the superintending' Lords, there is no necessity for periodical change in the permanent staff. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that his object is to insure responsibility, and I quite agree that that is an object of the greatest importance. I should have said that at the present moment the First Lord is responsible for the whole conduct of naval affairs; but with respect to responsibility the House must be careful not to be deceived by mere words. I do not think it would be advisable to introduce such a system as would make the Secretary of State the mere nominal head of an office, the whole of the business being transacted by a permanent officer nominally under him, but over whom he has practically no power. The House will recollect that when this Admiralty Board was first formed there existed the Navy Board, which nominally obeyed the orders of the Admiralty Board; but, never- theless, the latter found it very difficult to get its orders carried into execution. The Admiralty was responsible for the dockyards, but had no real control over them. I see symptoms of going back to the same system, and that, I think, is an unfortunate circumstance. With respect to the Navy Board, there was no fault to be found with the persons composing it, but nothing was so unpopular with the navy as that same Navy Board, and when it was done away with there was a general shout of applause from the officers of the navy. I advise the House not to attempt to carry the responsibility which belongs to the Minister to every officer under him, or the business of the office will be entirely disturbed. The real way of enforcing responsibility is to make the naval Minister responsible, for the moment you begin to throw responsibility on subordinates that moment you free the Minister. You must have some regard for the discipline of the office; and if you tell the subordinate clerks that they are held responsible, the head of the department maybe told by them, when he attempts to enforce his orders, that they will protest, and the proper conduct of the business would be interfered with. I will only allude to one other point. It is the fashion to advocate a council, and this is a plan supposed to have the assent of many officers. The First Lord undoubtedly is to have the power to override the Council, but it is proposed in respect to money matters,—that is to say, as respects any increase or any reduction of expense, the First Lord is to have no power, but must obtain the assent of this Council before he adds a shilling or takes off a shilling in the naval expenditure. Suppose the Government think that a reduction may be fairly made in preparing the Navy Estimates, vet, when the First Lord comes to the Council, that body may negative the proposition. The councillors, too, being officers not holding office at will, but for five years, I do not know how the House of Commons would like that, but it appears to me to be a considerable encroachment on the privileges of the House of Commons in respect to the voting of money. I cannot conceive that such a power would ever be conceded by those who value the privilege of voting money by the House of Commons. I will not enter further into the discussion, but I give my ready assent to the Motion.

MR. HENLEY

Sir, a very important subject is new under consideration. I quite agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich, and by the right hon. Gentleman who has last spoken, that what is wanted is that which would give the greatest real responsibility, coupled with the greatest efficiency and security for the public service. We have heard for the last year or two complaints of all kinds against this immense public department, and a mass of information has been collected by Commissions and Committees, and has likewise been published in pamphlets. Now, by some curious coincidence, the whole volume of complaint settles down like a blight upon the Admiralty. Everybody says it is the Admiralty that is in fault. We have heard a great many complaints that the men do not get bread enough; that ships are built which ought not to be built, and not at the proper time; about a Surveyor of the Navy who did not know how to build ships; and to-night we have heard what I was very sorry to hear, and what the gallant Officer who made the statement could scarcely have intended, I think,—that there is dissatisfaction among the officers, and insubordination, to say the least of it, among the men—all of which cannot be very satisfactory to a nation which is paying from £12,000,000 to £13,000,000 a year for the Navy. It is impossible to hear these things and not to say that there is something wrong somewhere. But all the people who have made these complaints have stopped short at one point. They have not proved to my mind that it is what is called the system of the Admiralty which is at fault in all these matters. They have alleged it, but not proved it. They have not shown how this or that officer ha3 been impeded by the action of the Board, or how this or that First Lord has been checkmated by some obstinate naval officer who would not see with his eyes. Under these circumstances, I was much struck with what was said by my right hon. Friend below (Sir John Pakington) last year—that it was a case for the Government to look into, and, if any alteration were wanted, to make it; and, certainly, I never was more surprised in my life than, when I came to the House the first time this Session, to hear that my right hon. Friend had given notice of a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry, and that the Government had agreed to such a Committee. All mischief, they say, comes from within; and, when the Admiralty that is and the Admiralty that was say there ought to be an inquiry, independent Members could not but come to the conclusion that some of these things about which the public were so dissatisfied could be traced to the system of the Admiralty. There has been a pamphlet recently circulated and also apparently a sort of pedigree scheme traced out from it, and on reading the two through hastily the objection stated by the right hon. Member for Portsmouth has occurred to me, namely, that, with a great deal of apparent responsibility, there was no responsibility at all about it. Some forty or fifty people were to be responsible to somebody, but the only man who was to be responsible to Parliament was the man at the head of all, and he was to have no control over these people, because they were all to have permanent employment. That would be a queer kind of responsibility to present to Parliament. I have never yet heard anybody say such and such a mistake has been made, and we are not able to find somebody responsible for it. The question of responsibility to Parliament has not yet been fairly tested. Many years ago I recollect the appointment of Captain Symonds to the post of Surveyor of the Navy was called in question; and the First Lord of the Admiralty, being challenged in this House, defended the appointment, and made himself responsible for it. That does not appear to me like a proof of want of responsibility. I do not remember any case where a complaint has been made, and the Admiralty charged with the blame, where a First Lord has attempted to throw off the responsibility, because he had no control, or for any other reason. If there is to be a Committee, it would be a very proper point to inquire into whether any of the matters which have been made subjects of complaint can be traced to any want of power in the Admiralty, to any shortcomings in a particular department, or to one thwarting another. Certainly, many things have come before us which it is not very easy to be satisfied with. My right hon. Friend told us a fact two years ago, which I think rather surprised the House. He said that for the ten preceding years the Admiralty had been ordering ships which had never been produced except on paper; that, instead of three ships of the line and a certain number of frigates per year, only two liners, and frigates in proportion, had been built. Was that the fault of the system, or of the men who worked it during that time? At the end of that time we woke up one fine morning and found that the French had got ahead of us, and it was said that if we had had those other ten ships this never would have happened. There might have been laches, but nobody has yet shown that that was owing to any fault in the constitution of the Admiralty, but it would be a very proper question for the Committee to inquire into. A short time ago a Commission was appointed to inquire into the best means of manning the Navy, and one of the things discoverd by that Commission was that the men did not get bread enough. The moment the Admiralty heard of it they increased the rations of bread 50 per cent. Was it the fault of the Admiralty that they had been short so long? One would have thought that a complaint of that sort must have reached the ears of the Admiralty very quickly. That is a matter which inquiry would set right one way or the other. But then it is said it is the shifting about of men in office that does all the mischief. You have seven or eight different Boards before you can say Jack Robinson. But at the head of the particular department which was concerned in the bread business there was an officer who had been there time out of mind. Admiral Milne was examined before the Commission, and he was asked, "How long have you been a Lord of the Admiralty?" "Many years," was his answer—a very vague term. I suppose his memory did not run to the time when he was not a Lord. He was a permanent officer, and he did not admit that there was any necessity for an increase in the bread; he gave the strongest evidence that the men had quite enough—they must have enough, because they do not draw all they have; they get pay instead of rations. But when the fact came to the knowledge of the Admiralty they increased the rations of bread by 50 per cent. Another curious bit of evidence was given in the same department about the meat. Admiral Milne said they bought the meat, and the contractor warranted it to last twelve months, but by some extraordinary management it was never served out to the men under two years. He told us that the allowance to each man is so much, and that if the meat shrinks down to less than a half the quantity is made up. But if a man who should have, say, one pound of meat for his dinner, finds that he gets only eight ounces and one pennyweight, he is not allowed to complain; nor has he any remedy with respect to the quality of the meat unless it was not sweet, although everybody knows what salt meat must be like when served out after two years. It was not proved, however, that the meat grievance was caused by the constitution of the Board of Admiralty. We were not told whether the captains of ships or the men themselves had brought the matter under the notice of the Board; but we ascertained that the gentleman whose particular duty it was to look after this department of the service was a permanent officer. Again, take the case of construction. I believe there have been only two Surveyors of the Navy for upwards of thirty years. That is not, therefore, a very shifting office, and yet there never has been anything like uniformity of opinion in this House as to the success of our naval construction. I do not know, indeed, whether the subject is one on which we can ever expect two men to agree. I am glad that the Government have consented to the proposed Committee. Provided that information is fairly afforded by the Government I think it is likely that the inquiry will show that there is some want of harmony in the working of the system, and some want of proper control over some of the departments. If the result be to point out to the Government what really is the disease, they will be the parties to apply the remedy. In a matter like this, which so closely concerns the privileges of this House with respect to the control of expenditure, and which so closely touches the prerogatives of the Crown, no party is fit to propose a remedy except the Government of the day. A Committee may be of assistance to them, either in pointing out where the blots, if any, are, or in satisfying the public mind that the want of success does not arise from the constitution of the Admiralty, but from some other cause. The subject is very important; time, I am sure, will not he wanting for the full elucidation of it; but, however that may be, it is clear that there must he an inquiry. Last night the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty invited the opinion of the House on the subject of Sir Baldwin Walker's leaving the country. Considering the great difference of opinion which exists on the point of construction, and as to where the blame ought to fall, I think it is very probable that Sir Baldwin Walker's conduct will be called in question before the Committee. I think, also, that all matters connected with Admiralty action upon the dockyards must necessarily come before the Committee. Under these circumstances it certainly would have been better if Sir Baldwin Walker, instead of being out of the country, could have been present to give such explanations as he might deem necessary. It is not unlikely, moreover, that his former colleagues at the Admiralty may decline to open their minds fully in his absence. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Government have assented to the appointment of this Committee, because, having had full opportunity during the recess of considering the whole matter, they must have come to the conclusion that the public would be benefited by an inquiry.

MR. BENTINCK

said, he thought the House had fully adopted the spirit by which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who brought the question before the House had avowed he was actuated—that of disclaiming party spirit or an intention to cast blame on any particular Board of Admiralty. He wished, however, to advert at the outset of his remarks to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich, with respect to the speech of the hon. and gallant Admiral. It appeared to him that those observations of the right hon. Baronet were unwarrantable, and quite uncalled for. There was nothing in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, nor in anything which had fallen from him, either in that House or elsewhere, during his long professional and public career, which could afford the smallest justification for them. With that observation he would proceed to a subject which, if discussed at all, he thought should be discussed on the present occasion—namely, the constitution of the proposed Committee. The point had been mooted, whether the right hon. Baronet, who had already held the post of First Lord of the Admiralty ought or ought not to be a member of this Committee. Upon that subject he entertained a very-strong opinion. In the observations, however, that he was about to make he begged it to be distinctly understood that he made them with no disrespect to the right hon. Baronet. As to the mere fact of ex-First Lords of the Admiralty being members of that Committee the right hon. Baronet himself had given a most conclusive reason against such a course being adopted. It was necessary, according to the right hon. Baronet, that the Committee should be composed of men who possessed a competent knowledge of the subject. That might be taken for granted; but one of the questions which the Committee would have to investigate was whether the public service was prejudiced by the practice of putting at the head of a great department men who, whatever their ability, were totally unacquainted with the details of the business over which they had to preside. Could it be expected that ex-First Lords would take the same—he would not say impartial—but dispassionate view of that matter that other persons less interested would? and would their presence in the Committee not give to the inquiry a tone and character which would much lessen the value of its results? Again, the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty had declared that the Admiralty was about to be put upon its trial. If that were so, the proposal to put ex-First Lords upon the Committee amounted simply to this, that these distinguished men were to discharge the duty of both judge and jury in their own case. One of the most important questions to be decided by the Committee was whether civilians should be placed at the Board at all, and was it proper that the very men whose position would be thus impugned should be allowed to decide in their own cause? It was impossible that the Report of such a Committee could carry a conviction of its impartiality with it as far as the public were concerned. The case of Lord Spencer which had already been quoted, was a striking example of the evils of such a course. With such a case before them was it right to place other civilians in a similar position. He strongly objected, therefore, to the appointment of such a Committee, and he hoped the House would join him in thinking that the distinguished individuals in question would be of the utmost service to the Committee as witnesses, but ought not to be permitted to be among the Members of whom it was composed.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he wished to express his objection to the system which appeared to be gradually growing up, and by which the direction of great departments was engrossed by Members of the other House. In order to secure inadequate responsibility to the country, the First Lord ought to sit in the House of Commons. In saying that he wished to cast no reflection on the noble Lord who now represented him there—it was the system to which he objected. The head of the War Office had just been translated to the Peers; the Colonial Secretary sat in the other House; and it would be a fitting climax that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should sit there also, and be vicariously represented in the Commons. Such a practice was, he believed, fraught with injury to the public interest.

SIR CHARLES WOOD

Sir, I must say that whilst I regret as much as my hon. Friend can do the absence from this House of the heads of both the great departments of expenditure, I am rather surprised to hear him complain of what he most unjustly designates as a system by which the heads of great departments are being transferred to the other House. When the present Government came into office, out of sixteen Cabinet Ministers ten occupied seats here, and out of five Secretaries of State four were in this House. Unfortunately Lord Herbert's state of health rendered necessary his transfer to the other House; but even now I do not think there exists any ground for the complaint of my hon. Friend. With regard to the main question under discussion, I agree that nothing can have been more satisfactory, temperate, and fair, than the whole tone of the discussion upon the main question before us this evening. It has been quite removed from anything like a party, petty, or personal spirit, and if, as I trust, this is an example which will be followed by the Committee, great advantage may be derived from its inquiries. I confess, however, that I do not anticipate that the Committee will find that any great change in the constitution of the Board of Admiralty is necessary. If the Government had thought such a change was clearly necessary, they would have made it themselves; but as they did not entertain that opinion, they proposed no alteration, nor did they suggest the appointment a Committee. Seeing, however, the complaints which are made against the Board—complaints, let me observe, unaccompanied by any attempt to show how these defects are in the slightest degree owing to the constitution of the Board—the Government think it wise to assent to the appointment of a Committee which may possibly detect faults; but, the appointment of which, at all events, will satisfy the country. Much has been said about the frequent shifting of the First Lord. But if he is not to go out along with the Ministry of which he is a member, I think the House must be prepared to alter the constitution of all the great departments of the State to which the same principle applies. Re- member, that though these changes may take place, there exists a permanent civil staff, who perform their duties quite independent of the political heads under whom they serve. For myself, I believe there is an advantage in the change of these heads of departments from time to time. In all permanent bodies there is a tendency to a system of routine, and changes effected now and then, introducing new blood, are, in my opinion, of essential advantage to the public service. On the subject of the responsibility of the First Lord, I am rather surprised at some of the opinions which have been expressed. When I was in office I consulted my naval colleagues on all questions. I was too glad to do so, but I never experienced the slightest difficulty on this account. I was responsible, of course, for the measures which I brought forward. I have had great experience at the Admiralty—having been for five years Secretary to the Board and for three years First Lord—I can say that I have, in neither capacity, seen or experienced the slightest difficulty in carrying through any measure which the First Lord has thought necessary for the public service. For what he does the First Lord of the Admiralty is responsible to the House of Commons and the country, and I do not believe that any change you can make will fix on him a greater degree of responsibility than he-has at present; and I do not think it would be advisable to put more responsibility on those officers who are not in this House to defend themselves, or answer for themselves, if their conduct is questioned. The duty of the House of Commons is to hold those responsible who are the Ministers of the Crown. If those Ministers find that any of the other officers of the department do not work well under them, then it is their duty to devise some remedy for the inconvenience; but the responsibility should not be divided; it should be imposed only on those who were able to answer for themselves in the House. I remember the time when the Poor Law Administration was not represented in this House, and at that time a constant series of vexatious attacks were made on that department. But after it had a representative here most of those attacks ceased. Whatever change may be made, I hope the responsibility of the First Lord of the Admiralty will not be affected, nor do I wish to see the influence of the Naval Lords diminished.

MR. DISRAELI

My opinion, Sir, is in favour of granting this Committee; not that I think that the result of its investigation will be very important, or that it will bring about any great alteration in the administration of the Admiralty. But the Committee will deal with a subject that has much engaged public attention, and I think it will prove that many misconceptions exist with regard to this great branch of the public service. I should be sorry if one result of the labours of the Committee was to recommend that the head of the Admiralty shall in future always be a naval officer. If we come to that Resolution, the next step will be to take this department of the Government out of the House altogether. We have got it in the House now, and I recommend you to keep it here. I am persuaded that the schemes for changing the character of this branch of the public service into an administration purely professional are only preparing the way for the House of Commons losing the command of it. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) has made some just observations on the position in which the House is now placed with regard to the heads of two great departments. However much we may deplore the circumstances that have produced this condition of things, the fact remains; neither the administration of the navy nor that of the army is represented by the heads of those departments in the popular branch of the Legislature. I do not wish to occupy the House at this period of the evening, but I did not like to remain silent, for some expressions have been used in the course of this debate by two hon. Friends of mine which I very much regretted to hear, and I think they must have arisen from some mutual misconception. If there has been any error on the part of the right hon. Member for Droitwich in giving notice of his intention to move for this Committee of Inquiry into the Administration of the Admiralty and the state of the Navy, I take the full responsibility for the step. My right hon. Friend asked my advice with regard to it; and it was with my sanction and approbation the notice was given. It would, therefore, be disingenuous in me, if, after what has passed, I should be silent on that head. If I had supposed that taking this course would have given offence to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the East Riding, I should have been the last person to have counselled the step. Between him and myself there exist the cordial relations of an intimacy of more than a quarter of a century. I have great respect for his talents, and regard for his character. I know the independent spirit that always animates him, and I much regretted that he did not find it convenient to afford the late Government the assistance his experience could have given had he joined it. Last Session, I know my hon. and gallant Friend brought this subject forward with distinguished ability, but I was not aware he was under any engagement to renew it in the present Session. The question has now even greater interest than it had last year, and as my hon. Friend was not here to remind us of the position in which he stood with respect to the question, my right hon. Friend may be pardoned if he has, inadvertently, poached on his manor. But my right hon. Friend, when made aware of the breach of Parliamentary etiquette he had unconsciously committed, showed that he was animated by the feelings which should influence one gentleman in his conduct towards another. He did not hesitate a moment to put himself right with my hon. Friend and the House. My hon. Friend the Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) made some observations just now, marked—I will not say with bitterness—but with less pleasantness than is usual with him, when referring to some expressions of my right hon. Friend, which he seemed to think were not justified by anything which fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the East Riding. My hon. and gallant Friend, who loves frankness too well to quarrel with me for expressing my opinion frankly on this subject—[Admiral DUNCOMBE: Hear, hear!]—my hon. and gallant Friend will recollect that he had spoken of the conduct of my right hon. Friend as unwarrantable. Now that is an expression which cannot be easily passed over by any Gentleman in this House. It is a strong epithet, though, perhaps, Parliamentary. Any one who is told that his conduct is "unwarrantable," may be excused if he retorts with a little violence of tone and manner. But I trust my hon. Friend and the right hon. Baronet will find no occasion to remember this rather disagreeable passage of Parliamentary discussion. My hon. and gallant Friend has now obtained that position to which he is fairly entitled, and no one wishes for a moment to deprive him of it. I trust that when the Committee is appointed it will be animated in its la- bours by only one desire, to illustrate the question and throw that light upon the subject, which in the present state of the public mind is very desirable; and I shall be sorry if the result of this discussion is to deprive the Committee of the services of any of those distinguished statesmen who have been heads of the naval department.

ADMIRAL DUNCOMBE

said, he rose to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham for the kind and courteous manner in which he had spoken of him then and on former occasions. He would not deny that he felt excessively annoyed by the right hon. Member for Droitwich moving for the Committee. He had brought the question forward in the previous Session, and nothing was easier than to have ascertained whether he intended to follow up the subject or not. He had had longer experience in the House than the right hon. Baronet, and he never remembered when a Member had brought forward a question another hon. Gentleman stepping forward and taking it out of his hands. But after what had passed, he should say no more of the matter.

MR. KINNAIRD

expressed a hope that the House would not lose sight of the great constitutional question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham), because, although within the last six years £80,000,000 had been voted by Parliament for the Naval Service, that important service was not represented in that House by a responsible Minister.

Motion agreed to.

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.

House adjourned at Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.