§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to ask Admiral Duncombe, When he intends to move for the re-appointment of the Admiralty Committee?
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, the hon. and gallant Member seemed to take it for granted that he (Admiral Duncombe) intended to move for the re-appointment of the Committee, as his question merely asked "when" the Motion was to be made? He believed that, according to the usages of the House, the Motion for re-appointing a Committee was made by the Chairman of the Committee, or at his request. But however that might be, as an individual Member of the Committee, it was not his intention to make the Motion. It would possibly be in the recollection of the House that when the Committee was appointed he had objected to several of its Members being placed upon it. He had done so because he had thought it contrary to common usage, and to common sense indeed, that certain leading Members of the House, whose evidence would be essential before the Committee, should, after having given that evidence, return to the judgment-seat and pass judgment on the evidence they themselves had given. When the Committee was appointed and had commenced its labours, he had experienced great difficulty, not having the weight and authority of the chair, in conducting the business he desired to bring before it. Unfortunately Sir R. Dundas, whose loss was justly deplored, both by the service and the country, died shortly before he was about to be called as a witness, in which capacity he would have given evidence contrary to evidence previously given. Other members of the profession, upon whose evidence he (Admiral Duncombe) had relied, were appointed to offices which made their appearance as witnesses incompatible with the retention of office. Others were appointed to commands which rendered it impossible for him to summon them. He had no hesitation, too, in saying that several 1264 officers had shown a reluctance to attend before the Committee, though not having the most favourable opinion of existing arrangements. It would have been extremely painful to him to apply for a Speaker's order to compel the attendance of these gallant Gentlemen. Under those circumstances, and considering that it would be unfair to harass a public department by a Committee sitting throughout a whole Session, and constantly requiring information by returns and otherwise from the officers of that department, without any satisfactory result to the country, he had determined not to ask for the re-appointment of the Admiralty Committee.
MR. HENLEYsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Duncombe) had stated that it was usual for the Chairman of a Committee to move for its re-appointment. As Chairman of the Committee, therefore, he begged leave to say that he took no part originally in moving for its appointment; and as no instruction, nor anything like instruction, had been given by the Committee to him to ask for its continuance, be considered that he stood perfectly free from any responsibility in the matter. If the Committee had given him the slightest hint, or the least kind of instruction, that they wished it to be continued, he should have obeyed that instruction. He, however, did not consider it to be his duty, under the special circumstances under which he took the chair of the Committee, to call for a continuance of the inquiry.