The Sun. — London, England, 1861-06-15 00:00:00

and that so anxious wa . s my noble friend to avoid any mis construction that he had declined to receive the deputation. I did not say Mr. Daly was authorised to make the commu nication, nor did I say that he stated himself to be autho rised to make it. I said that he seemed to be entitled to ask the question, and if I had the statement to make over again I do not know that I could use words that would better con vey my meaning. A noble lord representing a part of Ire land, I believe, rose more than once in the course of the de bate that night to ask for explanations, and my noble friend (Lord Palmerston), after the division on the question before the house, in reply to a question from the hon. and gallant member for Roscommon (Col. French), made a statement with respect to what passed between Mr. Daly and himself, and any one who will read in the newspapers the speech in Galway, I believe, of Father Daly, as he is called, will find that he gives exactly the same description as that which was given by my noble friend. Some days afterwards I, having made no imputation upon the Irish members, on a Wednesday, a day when it is not expected that public business will be introduced, and private bills are generally the matters of discussion, an hon. friend of mine, the mem ber for Roscommon, came down to the house and disclaimed on the part of the Irish members that any authority had been given to Mr. Daly to speak on behalf of the Irish members, or to use threats to the Government respecting the question about to be debated in the House of Commons. My noble friend, as I understood, immediately got up and ex pressed himself perfectly satisfied with that declaration, and after that the matter seemed to end. The statement having been made by my noble friend, and not by me, my noble friend accepted the disclaimer that was made. I was not peesenf in the house at the time, and I concluded that the whole business was at an end. (Hear, hear.) But as the hon. gentlemen has made this statement to elay, I am ready to say that I, like my noble friend, accept entirely that dis claimer. I readily believe Mr. Daly had had no authority, that he was not entitled to ask my noble friend to receive a deputation, nor to use any threat to the Government. On the other hand I think it must be admitted that supposing the Government had acted with the greatest injustice re garding the Galway contract, supposing the company had fulfilled every item of their contract, and the Government was completely in the wrong, it would even then have been disgraceful, both to the Government and to the Irish mem bers, if, for the sake of a majority on that occasion, they en tered into any compact with regard to the renewal of the contract. That, therefore, is my statement to the house, and I think I was bound to make the statement which I did. A few days afterwards the Times said this was the current report, and that they had given it publicity. That being so, both the Government and the Irish members ought to be obliged to the newspaper which brought into light that which was currently reported they ought t v Ltl glint have the opportunity of publicly disclaiming the imputa tion. It is not my intention to enter into an y q uestion with respect to the Galway contract, as the Government do not intend to oppose the motion of the hon. member. The whole of the circumstances he h as stated will come under the consideration of a committee, and I hope if any injustice has been committed that that injustice will be repaired. (Hear.) But I must say with regard to the concluding observations of the hon. gentleman that I re member once calling upon Lord Melbourne, and he informed me that he had offered the office of lord-lieutenant to Lord Auckland, and mentioned that he had refused the offer. I said I did not suppose that that would have been a very popular appointment, upon which Lord Melbourne remarked s‘ You are entirely mistaken. There are no people in the world who love, admire, and respect a plain and simple cha racter, a man of honour and integrity of purpose, and actu ated by a love of justice, more than the Irish people. That is the character of Lord Auckland, and his would have been a popular appointment." I believe with Lord Melbourne that the Irish people do appreciate justice when they are treated with justice, and if any injustice has been committed they will naturally feel sore at that injustice; but I believe n Government which really wishes to stand well with Ire land ought not to endeavour to do so by giving them any unfair advantages, but ought to be guided solely by high principles of justice. (Cheers.) Mr. BAXTER was glad that the Government did not intend to oppose the motion, because it appeared to him that the more investigation they had upon the subject, and the more closely it was looked into by any competent tri bunal—whether by a large or a small committee—the more clearly would it appear that the Postmaster-General had only done what it was his bounden duty to do. He would clear the ground by distinctly stating that his hostility to the Galway contract had nothing to do with the fact that the vessels sailed from an Irish port. (Hear, and oh.) His principle was that wherever there was an effective competi tion on the ocean, a subsidy became a profligate waste of public money. (Hear.) He therefore thought that Lord Derby's Government did quite wrong, not only in granting the Galway subsidy, but in renewing the Cunard contract. (Hear.) He had himself lost no opportunity of exposing the evils arising from that contract. He had, however, no connexion with any steamship company, and his only desire was to save the public money by exposing the evils which resulted from the system of unlimited subsidies which had lately grown up. That system was a detriment instead of an advantage to the commerce of the country. At the same time he admitted that Ireland was entitled from her geo graphical position, if for no other reason, to a direct postal communication with Ainerica—(hear, hear) —and though he objected to the renewal of the contract with the Cunard Company and of the subsidy to the Galway Company, he held the opinion that it was the bounden duty of the Go vernment to see that Ireland was made the point of depar ture and arrival as regarded America. This ought to be and could easily be done, without hastily renewing the con • tract with the Cunard Company on those old terms which every one connected with commerce knew were ridiculously advantageous to that company. The Galway Company had never the means of carrying on the service, and was neither more nor less than a commercial sham. (Hear, hear.) No doubt, as soon as the contract was signed and ratified by the Government it was the duly of the Government to carry it out in the most fair and liberal spirit. But what was the financial position of the Galway Company ? He held in his hind a document which set the matter entirely at rest. By the balance-sheet of the Atlantic Royal Mail Packet Company, made up to Dec. 31, 1860, it appeared that the subscribed capital at that date was £106,390, and the losses, &c., £335,839, leaving a balance of £70.550. lie had placed the document in the hands of an experienced accountant, who reduced the balance to £19,996. (Laughter, and a cry of " How do you make it out ?") Since that date the company had lost a great deal of money; and if they got every shilling of the £72,000 from the Government their financial position in the present year was wholly hope less and irremedable. (Hear, hear.) `vita regard to ships, the hon. gentleman flattered himself that the case was not so bad as represented. It was said that if indulgence were granted to the company they would be able to carry on the service ; but it was an ugly and indisputable fact, that at the present moment the company had only one single ship, answering to the terms of the contract—the Adriatic. He readily admitted that there was no finer vessel on the At lantic than the Ad r i a ti c , w hi c h h a d b een purc h ase d f rom the Americans. The contract required vessels of 2,000 tons e Nve a e o r h, with 450 h orse - power; and four steamers of that class necessary to perform th e serv i ce . Th ose f our steamers n orderede to be b u ilt b y th e company. The first was the Connaught, which ought never to have c rosse d th e ocean. To the a s t o nishment of everyone she made one passage. On her second she Sanprdattergea tremendous leak and took fire, and the passengers on w t zere only saved by the greatest heroism and. darin p h al s t t of the captain of an Ame rican brig. (Hear.) The of the Hibernia was if possible still sadder. She left Southampton to take her sta tion on the Galway line, and according to documents pre sented to the house, she got as far RasecaopueldClear, when she different t s t a hla y n as es to encountered a severe hurricane. that matter that the captains of three steamers who were in the same neighbourhooleant time had no knowledge of any hurricane. (Lanepsame I They repot ted there was nothing further than a tolerably heavy sprit ig sea. But that was too much for the ship, s h y , put into Cc.rk leaking fore and aft, and it was with the greatest pc seible difficulty she could be got to Liverpool. He was in possession of a report, dated the 6th April, 1861, made by th e surveyor who surveyed the vessel in dry dock in Liverpm )1, in consequence of the representations of the Postmaster -General. It stated that the whole vessel was severely st; wined, indicating such a deficiency of strength —especial': ✓ longltudinally—as to account for the leakage, and render her unseaworthy. With regard to the fhb. r nia, paddle steamer, there was a report of the Board of Trade, to oho effect that she showed great symptoms of weakness, and required to be considerably strengthened. They report also recommended that her certificate should be cancelled, and it teas cancelled accordingly. He was told that £lO,OOO was required tb make the ship fit for sea, and he believed that even if that sum were spent upon her, the hon. members for Roscommon and Galway wou.d not entrust their lives to her across the Atlantic. (Laughter.) The third vessel built was the Columbia, and the report of the Admiralty, dated the Ist of April, 1861 (before she went to sea), stated that the con sti.uction of her bulwarks was faulty, but still by alterations and additions made at Southampton she would be sufficiently seaworthy, and fit to carry the mails for two or three voy ages during the summer, but afterwards she should be care fully ( xamined in dry dock. (Laughter.) He ventured to say that such a report was never made before with regard to an entirely new vessel, and he was surprised that she had ever been allowed to pass at all. In respect to this ship he would rc•ad two sentences from a letter, dated April 28, 1861, which appeared in an Irish newspaper—" I am at last at Ports mouth, after a lonK voyage of 18 days. Notwithstanding its length, the voyage was one of continual mishap. (Laugh ter.) The Columbia, I am sorry to say, is a complete failure. She is a wet and slow ship. In spite of her large consump tion of coal she only made 10 miles an hour instead of 15, as was intended." They put the Columbia into dry dock at Liverpool, and the last he heard of her was that she had fallcia on her beam ends. (Laughter.) The fourth was the Anglia, which was not yet ready. No doubt the company had the Prince Albert, but she was not a ship answering to the contract. She made a passage homeward thrice within the contract time, but the average of her voyages out, which the company had trumpeted forth, was four d ays b eyond contract time. (Hear, hear.) One word as to the Parana, ad which the directors said was a ship 'which h been employed in the postal service. That was true. The Parana was an of d ship belonging to the West India Mail Company, She /le WET was a good 'tip, and was coildeinzwa some years ago as unfit for the seas of the Southern Atlantic; and he must say, wii bout any prejudice to the Galway Com pany, that he should himself be sorry to entrust his life to her. (Laughter.) The next point was—how .1 the com pany with these ships perform the stipulations in the con tract. It was a sine qua non of the contract that the voyage from Galway to St. John's should be performed in six days. What were the facts ? He ,had them in his hand, but he would only give the general results. Out of 39 homeward voyages the vessels of the Galway Company only kept time on five occasions; out of 41 outward voyages they never kept their time once. (Hear, hear.) The Post master-General stated that there were only two double voyages which were performed within the terms of the con tract. He (Mr. Baxter) maintained that these results proved beyond all controversy that the Postmaster-General was entirely right when he said it was evident that the company was not, and never had been, in a position satis factorily to perform the conditions of the contract. (Heai.) He was told that two out of the four ships were built by gentlemen who had never built an ocean ship before. Stress had been laid on the absence of decision, on the part of the Government and Parliament, in regard to the question ; but during the whole of the interval the vessels were in the process of construction, and why were they not ready sooner? Two or three were ready, but they remained in the hands of the builders, for the plain and simple reason I that the company had no money to pay for them. (Laughter.) The difficulty arose from the company never having possessed sufficient capital to carry on their enter prise with. The ships were so bad that they were next to useless. The company enlarged on the difficulty of getting ships of such enornaons tonnage built, but this was really trifling with the House of Co.uneons. There was no diffi culty whatever in getting, any day, even larger ships built, provided they went to efficient builders, and had money to pay for them when completed. There was only one other point to which he would call the attention of the house. The secretary of the Post-office wrote to the secretary of the company, stating that greater indulgence was shown to this company than was ever shown to any other packet company- That was substantially true. The Royal Mail Company was, he admitted, very guilty indeed in respect of the time they occupied in their voyages. But the Atlantic Company never kept time at all, and in addition to that, they had at the present moment only one ship fit to perform the conditions of the contract, whereas the Royal Mail Company, though guilty of heinous sins, was never in that deplorable plight. There was no other instance of a company which had so conspicuously broken down or to which so much indulgence had been shown. But there was another company —the European and Aus tralasian —which had to contend with far greater iiiffir.o Rio. th.n. the Atlantic company ; but to that company no indul gence had been shown, and it was a Scotch company. (Laughter.) They had to pay every shilling of the tremen dous penalties they incurred, and obtained no remission of the sums to which they had become liable in consequence of the non-performance of their contract. He had been asked to bring their case before the house, but he refused to do anything of the kind, and for this reason, that he was certain that the moment they showed indulgence to com panies, and remitted the penalties due from them, these contracts became delusions and shams. (Hear.) This com pany had not a penny of money, and it had only one vessel that was in a position to meet the terms of the contract. It had utterly failed to perform one of the duties it had under taken. (Hear.) What, then, could the Postmaster-Gene ral do, under the circumstances, but what he had done ? And what did the hon. member for Galway now want to have done? Did he want more time for the company, in order that they might raise additional capital, which every man of business knew would be only to threw away good money after bad, and would only make that final winding up which must come more disastrous to those concerned ? Did he mean to ask her Majesty's Government to allow the royal mails to be carried in such ships as the Parana, the Columbia, and the Hibernia ? The Government would in cur a tremendous responsibility if they in any way counte nanced ships which were not fit to cross the North Atlantic. For these reasons he submitted to the house that the Post master-General had done what was simply his duty—a duty which was forced upon him by the gross mismanage ment of the company and its want of capital. (Hear, hear.) At the same time he was going to support the motion for a committee. (Laughter.) And he supported it for this rea son only—respect for the feelings of the people of Ireland. He supported it not because there was the slightest pretext for finding fault with Lord Stanley of Alderley, but that the people should, by the investigation into the affairs of this bubble company, be made aware how grossly they had been imposed upon and deceived. (Cheers.) Sir H. CAIRNS said he believed the hon. member for Montrose when he said he was not opposed to this company because it was an Irish company, but because he was con sistently opposed to all subsidies for postal service; but there were other parts of his speech which he regretted to say were not characterised by the same fair spirit. Having no connection with the Atlantic Company, he was not en titled to speak in their behalf, but he was a member of that house, and he knew what was fair. This company was a trading company, whose interests not only for the past but for the future were involved in every observation made in the course of that debate. And he would ask the house with confidence whether the observations of the hon. mem ber for Montrose were fair. (Hear.) Was it fair with re gard to a trading company whose credit in the world was of some importance to them, there having been no termina tion of the contract for the want of capital or solvency but upon other grounds, to say that it was a company in a state of hopeless insolvency, that it had not a shilling, and toane noun: e to the house that its balance-sheet was not what it appeared, but what it was made out to be by some ingeni ous accountant ? (Hear.) Was the hon. gentleman aware that since the time he spoke of the company had changed hands, and that it was now in the hands of men as solvent, as able to fulfil any engagement, and to contribute any sum of money to carry it on as any company in the kingdom ? That was a matter of common rumour, and if the hon. gen tleman was not aware of it he was singularly unfortunate in the extent of his information. But that was not all. The hon. gentleman said there were four ships ordered to be built, and then he complained of their character. But what were the facts ? The contract specified the requisites of the ships that should be built, and the contractors entered into engagements with shipbuilders of known repute for the construction of the vessels, and they gave prices that were not too scanty. (Hear, hear.) They gave fall and large prices, and moreover, every ship which had been built was surveyed by the Government inspector, and approved of by him. (Hear, hear.) Was it fair, then, to charge a com pany which had done everything they could do under the circumstances, as the hon. member for Montrose had done ? Was it fair to say that if £IO,OOO had been laid out on the ship he mentioned, not a single member would trust his life in her across the Atlantic ? (Hear, hear.) But the hon. member's unfairness did not rest there. He said he had received letters from captains of merchant vessels, who said that they knew of no gale at the time when one of the com pany's vessels was said to be damaged in the storm off Cape Clear. Still, that vessel was inspected by the Government inspector, and he spoke of her having been strained off Cape Clear. Was the Government inspector capable of forming a correct opinion, or was he not? He apprehended he was. The hon. member seemed to be acquainted with the Euro pean and Australasian Company, and he told the house that that company had been made to pay all the penalties it had incurred to the uttermost farthing. He had the report of the committee on which the hon. member for Montrose sat before him, and he found this question and answer in it,— " Can you (Mr. Clifton was the witness) inform the com mittee whether the penalties were enforced from the com pany ? Answer —The penalties incurred amounted to £75,725, and the amount remitted was £21,133." (Hear, hear.) Was it fair in the hon. gentleman to inform the house—he himself being a member of the committee before which the fact was disclosed—that though some indulgence had been shown to the West India Company, no indulgence had been shown to the Australian Company, and that the penalties had been exacted t o th e u tt ermos t f ar thi ng ? (Hear, hear.) With regar d to this contract, the circum stances connected w ith i t were to be deplored, and by no parti es so ranch disputes with rbeg as ara by ta th t b e companyaseeo ntractcontracts concerned. could be Ud decided i t d o e l d B 5 i n 5 years ago subsidies being that the Goy courts of law, in conseqaenee of a change made a few Well, then, Government not now absolutely given, the form arose, in which the contract would pay a subsidy to be voted by Parliament. , when the case of the Parana an t Was rescinded, the company affirmed that she was efficient vessel, and in proof of that they said that she had performed the voyage within the time. That was a questiontto abteitried not in that a seemed to him house nor even in a court of law. that the contractor should be allowedtfair and full opportunity of investigation. Now, what was the th e c o mpany ? They were allowed from April, 18 a :9 e to of J u ne, 1860, to collect capital and to prepar e t h eir vessels and if there were no more than that, an d the vessels w ere not ready at the time spe cified, there would be good g round for repudiating the contract. But look at the position ~ the company during that time. The contractors were bound hand and foot to the contract, but the other party to it was back, as free. (Hear, hear.) The conseq uence of such a state of things necessarily was that the shareholders fell the security on which they were to advance their money, namely, the subsidy of £75,000, might turn out entirely worthless. Therefore, when the hon. member for Montrose told the house that there were two ships on the builders' stocks, but that the money was not there to take them off, he was only proving the case which had been made out by the hon. member for Galway. (Hear, hear.) When one party was free to repudiate the contract, whilst the other was bound under heavy penalties, it required no keen in sight into the motives of men to know that shareholders would postpone the payment of calls as long as possible. (Hear, hear.) Then with regard to the obligation of the comptme to carry the mails to St. John's, the company said that they were not bound by the terms of the con tract to do so. He looked at the contract, and it seemed to him to be very doubtful whether they were bound to do so. But what did the Postmaster-General do ? Upon an applicati on t o hi m t o postpone the starting of a particular ship he not only exacted the penalty but he in sisted upon the company's signing an admission that his construction of the contract was right and theirs was wrong. (Hear, hear.) He said that the department had no right to put that duress upon the company. (Hear, hear.) He had never known such a thing done before, and he hoped it would not be made a precedent of, (Um, hear.) It would not redound to the honour of a government department, and he thought he knew what a court of law would say f such a proceeding. (Hear, hear.) He was glad that the hon. member for Montrose had given his sanction to the ap pointment of a committee, and he only regretted that he thought it his duty to make the observations he did with regard to a company that was not there to defend itself. As it was decided that there should be a packet service between Amer;ca and Galway, and as a railway had been con structed with that view, if the house were now to resolve that the service should be discontinued from that port great injustice would he done to the legitimate expec tations of the people of Ireland. There was a trade of about £2,000,000 sterling a year b e t ween B e lf ast an d America, in addition to which there was a large emigration conveyance. He honed, therefore, the house would agree that there were very fair grounds for reconsidering this e. question.am aH. ofa: considered ien A pot Todont s N ii hsnbml ee C edtpae: E es nrpae L ecnededhed L od batOniglvt considered,oßeemstntl cahtfaaoilatmfltme scarcely btoorwahlsufmnyieotltmhhflr greatiiet ntl4s X ta ieaw intse C hdd evHtnwihfirhtnrtpiQpe immediate drhhr U :ei paa importance, cokser nit e deehat, said,— Theersswteuhlohbafna servicejit ttceot hhecwiertt, son itd bae. portionoasloa.shtfrsdk7eeuheh rad h lbe e tt of reference. Looking to the immediate object of the committee, I do not think the learned gentleman is justified in the complaint which he has made against the member for Montrose. My hon. friend the member for Montrose has spoken with great freedom upon what he believed to be the essential merits of this case, and has entered into the motives of public transactions. The learned gentleman finds fault with him for entering upon subjects of that description on the eve of an inquiry which ought to partake of a judicial character. I agree with the learned gentleman that great inconvenience arises from questions of this kind being sharply contested on the eve of inquiry. But we do not owe this inconvenience to the hon. member for Montrose. We owe it, on the contrary, to my hon. friend the member for Galway, who, although he was perfectly aware the committee was to be granted, has insisted upon entering into a controversy and impugning the whole con duct of the Government. (Hear, hear.) Sensible of that inconvenience, I will endeavour not to make addition to it, and in the few remarks which I shall have to make I shall not find it necessary to enter into those considerations which affect the peculiar position of this company. I confess I should have been very glad if the hon. member for Galway had abstained from an exciting discussion of the subject. But, as he has expressed his views very largely in connec tion with his motion, it is necessary to guard the house free , ...fleeing thee eeeeeee tree to the motion, they accede to his general views more than is con sistent with their duty. The hon. member far Galway seems to me, without reference to this contract, to have an idea of the nature of the packet service which is fundament ally erroneous. He has treated it throughout his speech as a matter of distribution of grace and favour, and, treating these subsidieseas a matter of grace and favour, he is perfectly warranted in saying that grace and favour should be ex tended to one place in proportion as that grace and favour are extended to another place. But such a view is, in my opinion, perfectly destructive of public administration, and if adopted would open a fountain of political corruption so large and so foul that the corrupt transactions of former times would be eclipsed and forgotten. (Cheers.) We have nothing to do with grace and favour in this matter, and if we had, most mischievous would be the results. (Hear.) Again, my hon. friend complains of the severity of the conditions of the Galway Contract compared with the lightness of the conditions of the Cunard Contract; but he forgets that those who complain of the Galway Contract as a serious error are like wise the persons who hold that the prolongation of the Cunard Contract was an error not second in amount to the error committed in making the Galway Contract. The ge neral view on which I hope the Government always has and will proceed is, that we are not to regard these contracts as favours conferred on one part of the country or the other, but that the whole question is what service is necessary for the country as a whole, and what remuneration ought to be given for that service ? Ido not wish to exclude the pecu liar considerations of equity which may bear upon this case, but I take the liberty of laying down that general principle in opposition to the general principle contended for by the hon. gentleman. (Hear.) Ido not think that in the par ticular demand which he makes he has been just to the Postmaster-General. One, I think, was an extravagant demand. If I understood him right, he contended that it was unreasonable to subject the Adriatic to a survey; that she was a fine vessel, and had been employed in service of this description, and that the Postmaster-General ought not to have subjected her to a survey. The house must recollect that since the time of the Adriatic performing ser vice, from either some particular cause or general wear and tear, she may have ceased to be in a condition to perform service; and if the Postmaster-General had taken such a course as to exempt the Adriatic from survey I think he would have deserved the reprobation of all who care for the public administration. (Hear, hear.) Again, the hon. gentleman complains that all concessions granted by the Postmaster-General have been paid for. That is not the case, and the hon. and learned gentleman is in error in that respect. On the contrary, the Postmaster-General has stated in a letter which has been laid on the table of the house, although it is not, unfortunately, in the hands of members, that no penalty was imposed when the Parana was permitted to take mails, and that no penalties were levied on the many occasions when the company failed to Provide a packet for the mail service at the appointed date. Again, with regard to the Parana being refused, the hon. gentleman seems to think that there is no obligation on the company to perform the voyage between Galway and Newfoundland in a period of six days, and that the whole question is, not the service between Galway and Newfound land, but between Galway and Boston ; but the whole ques tion is the service between Galway and Newfoundland. The best case for the Galway contract is that the service was appointed in order to take advantage of the position of Ire land to make the quickest possible passage between Great Britain and the nearest point having telegraphic communi cation with America—that is to say between Galway and St. John's. The hon. gentleman admits that the Parana is not fitted to perform the service between Galway and St. John's in six days; the Postmaster-Generalsays the refusal of the Parana was fully warranted by her previous per formances in the service of another company, and by her being on one voyage, when permitted to be used by this com pany, 1 day 5 hours, and on another voyage 1 day and 13 hours, behind time. The hon. gentleman said, with consi derable truth, that the important point in this case is the question which was raised by him and stated strongly by the learned gentleman opposite, with respect to the loss of time and the peculiar position of the country in the interval between the period when the contract was brought under the special notice of the house and the period when it re ceived the final sanction of Parliament ; but I cannot say that the statement of the directors or of the hon. gentleman is fair or just. I understand the ease which the company now puts forward to be, that they would have been justified in asking for a postponement of the time for the commence ment of the service, and I observe there is a disposition to insinuate that such a request was actually made and refused. Now, as my hon. friend the member for Galway said very truly, this is the point of the whole ease. My hon. friend stated that the company were told at the Treasury that they must commence the service at once, but, on my making s gesture of surprise, he added that they had no record in writing of that representation. I must say that if a repre sentation of so vital a character was made to the company, it is very unfortunate that they did not obtain some evi dence of it in writing. Ido not, however, believe that any such representation was made by the Treasury. The com pany alleges that it wag urged on them that the com mencement of the service at the time stipulated was an in dispensable condition, and that any shortcomings; in that respect would justify the opponents of the measure in call ing upon the Government to terminate the contract. The Postmaster-General has, however, explicitly denied that any pressure was employed to induce the company to com mence the service. If that fact can be substantiated, I ad mit that it is very material ; but it is entirely unknown to the Governreent, and no evidence of it has yet been pro duced. That will be one of the points, of course, into which the committee will inquire. I cannot separate the conduct of my noble friend the Postmaster-General from that of the Government, because in the course he followed he was not without the concurrence of his colleagues. My hon. friend the member for Galway was entirely mistaken as to the air , cumstances connected with the proposed inquiry into the conduct of the Crimean War. I certainly do not for a mo ment question the right of the house, through their com mittees, to examine, and, if they see fit, to censure the con duct of the Government. What I maintain is that it has not been the intention of the Government to treat the Gal way company with anything except justice and liberality. What a in t a ar ul e g t e h n e ce f , acts of the case? The company began IT inadequate the service e without any request for a postponement beyond the time which had been fixed. They received in the first place thes t t a h ena o asd u e t o the f era e adequatet i o a o saenisy. Next penalty, theyof s send ing n r -- Avasg ra n a t e e d . t c o eiw t i em of the indulgence of substituting a monthly for a fort nightly w rvic en i e s October they requested the altogether, ehej nitahne n a t tht postponement fresh w n a c s e tprousetpthonaetmtheenatgof'reement under till March. It is finally conceded was not signed till . lo e u eet t h th eed a; t a o r t o h s e e only from we should forgectornall from the unwillingness of the company o ee f estoli c . i te ov t e he rnment con ditions of the agreement. The interynticoonn com pany beeny that that could ev ebsehou fairlyl make gre n granted, that was faulty or questionable in the formation an d origi nal terms of the contract , an d that if any - question of default againsta e i t shoulditr We h v be a ruled rather carried out in those favour intentions,o f the company and thanhave given to the Galway Company at least as much indulgence only a b p e c s e a v u e s e n a i t l i w t t a l e s m e u o r r e e . o n W e c e i e p n u t i t o a u n s ;l on er ! c a n s d t to o any th e o other, r a a n e d t belief that, after so much and such varied indulgence had been granted, any further re l a xation would destroy our power and standing ground for the future, and would lee of the contract at al l . As py hon. frie nd the member f or tually prevent us fr o m at a ny time enforcin g the conditions Montrose has said, I can COttekiVE nothing more mis chievous than a large extension of the practice ofeonces sions by the Government in regard to these contracts. (Hear.) Only consider the power which it pis .fnlQ the lamas of the Oovornment of traffiekipg for political THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 15, 186 L ence in particular districts of the kingdom, and you must see how intolerable the system would become if the Execu tive were to be ailowed unlimited licence in casting away the guarantees by which contracts are defended. (Hear.) I hope in the remarks I have made I have said nothing to exeisperate or inflame the controversy. We are anxious thi.t the question should be tried in a spirit of perfect im partiality and fairness, and any mixture of passion in our die cussion would afford a bad precedent to the committee. I trust that the committee will approach the task in a calm and judicial manner, and if they do I am confident that the result will be satisfactory to the house. (Hear, hear.) ,Mr. P. HENNESSY said the noble lord had defended not` only the Government, but the Irish members against wh at he was pleased to call a calumny. But he (Mr. Hen neesy) must differ from the noble lord in thinking that if the Irish members had voted against the Government on the paper duties question, taking it as a vote of confidence o r want of confidence, they would have done wrong. There was a precedent on this very question in the case of the late Mr. Wilson, a member of the present Govern ment, who spoke against the former Government on a vote of confidence, and one of the grounds he took was their conduct in respect to the Galway contract. He dis firmly said that he should vote against them on that ground. In opposing Lmd Derby's Reform Bill, Lord Palmerston did not confine himself to that question, but objected to the Indian policy, and Lord J. Russell criticised the foreign policy of Lord Malmesbury. Surely the Irish members were equally justified in voting against the Government on a question of confidence when they found Government not only now, but constantly opposed to the interests of Ire land. Many Irish members may have been influenced only to a small extent by the question of the Galway contract ; but it was the last straw that broke the camel's back. The whole policy of the Government with respect to Ireland was bad, and even the conduct of Irish business in this house was highly unsatisfactory—to such an extent, that the Irish members would be justified in putting her Majesty's Go vernment out of office as soon as possible. There was not a single Irishman in the Cabinet, nor was there in that house a single Irish officer of Government. For the first time since the Union they saw the offices of Attorney and Soli citor-General filled by Englishmen, and all the Irish offices either by Irish or Scotchmen. Everything relating to Ire land was brought before the house by Englishmen totally ignorant of the country they were legislating for. Every thing relating to Ireland was referred to select committees where the Chief Secretary for Ireland sat as chairman, and Irish gentlemen appeared as witnesses, so that Ireland was legislated for by select committees. The Government refused to give Volunteer corps to Ireland, but the Irish members were expected to vote for Government on the grant of X 1,300,000 for the Volunteer corps of England,towards which the Irish people contributed, but from which they derived no direct benefit. However, no Irish member opposed that vote. He thought the Irish members had better transfer their allegiance to those who knew something about Ireland, and whose policy had always been fair and generous to wards Ireland, who, when out of office in 1847, proposed large grants of public money to relieve Irish distress, which were refused by .this house in consequence of the opposition re ? sil;;;Paper ri srow h l n g m of e t m he be L r ike r ekis on e t e i p u e s c e ia re ll a e d T a ,o v r e d ry .Th in h te e the casualties which had occurred to the Galway Company. He would read a paper which would give some infoi oration to the hon. gentlemen, and to the Government. He pro ceeded to read an account of the accidents and losses of other companies, receiving income cases larger subsidies than the Atlantic Royal Mail Company had received. It might be said that these were all accidents, but he said the same of the Galway Company. There was in this matter not only a national but a commercial jealousy. The direct rival of the Galway Company was Inman's. The Galway Company had 401 passages in the year, Inman's 116, and Atlas 84. When these companies found that the Irish company was beating them out of the field, they got up a story that it was a failure, and get their friends to exercise a pressure on the members of the house and on the press to appose it. Lord Brougham had said that the Irish members were desirous of putting money in their purse, and that if Government had yielded on the question of the Galway contract it would be a money bribe. Now, he should like to know the opinion of the noble lord on those questions behind the Treasury Benches, who, in the debate on the paper duties, stated to the house specifically the amounts of money they would lose if the bill were not carried? If they were justified, surely the Irish members were right in voting against Go vernment on a question of confidence, not from pecuniary interest, but for the interest of the country they represented. But it was a mistake to regard this as a simply Irish ques tion. The house ought to support the Galway contract on other than Irish grounds. The great fact which had been lost sight of was that a contract had been entered into by the Government of the Earl of Derby with the Galway Company, and the present Government had thrown every difficulty in the way of the managers and shareholders car rying out its provisions. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CLAY thought it very unfair that the statements of the hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) ought not to be allowed to go before the public without some qualifica tion and contradiction, and he contended that there were no grounds for the statements of the hon. member that the ships of the Galway Company were unseaworthy. Two at least of the ships were certainly not open to such a charge; they wete built by the contractors upon plans proposed by the Admiralty, but considerably strengthened. The Co lumbia had been built very strongly, and had showed her • self to be a good ship, despite all the accidents and casual ties to which she had been exposed. The Anglia would, when completed, be, he believed, an equally good ship. With respect to the proposed motion, he was glad to find that the Government had acceded to the grant of the com mittee, and he hoped that the issue raised by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer would be fairly and fully tried, and that, as he understood it was, an unusual amount of indulgence had been granted to this company by the Government. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BLAKE was also glad to hear that the Government had consented to grant the committee, and stated that the board of directors of the Galway Company was, at present, widely different from that which was first formed. The chairman of the company was the owner of a larger num ber of steam-vessels than any man alive, and he and those assembled with him believed that, with proper manage ment, the undertaking might be made a great success. Since Ireland had, unfortunately, given up legislating for herself, a measure of so much real and practical value had not been adopted for that country as this Galway contract, and he could not help thinking that a great deal of the prosperity of Ireland depended upen the successful carry ing out of that enterprise. (Hear, hear.) Having paid a compliment to the Irish Secretary for the attention he had paid to the affairs of the sister country, he concluded by expressing a hope that the committee now about to be ap pointed would arrive at a just conclusion on the subject of the contract. Colonel FRENCH said that many hon. members had expressed their gratitude to the Government for having assented to the present motion,• forgetting that when the committee had been asked for in the first instance, the Government had refused the demand. He wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the opinion ot the law officers of the Crown had been taken as to the legality of determining the contract. Lord NAAS stated that he had taken a very lively inte rest in this question, and that in September, 1858, lie had recommended the Government to give the Atlantic Steam Packet Company their support. That company had had great difficulties to encounter, principally because an orga • nised opposition had been formed against it. It was said that the people of Ireland had formed unreasonable hopes on the subject of the contract, but the fact was that the geo graphical position of the sister country must ever point it out as a most desirable packet station between the United Kingdom and America. That geographical position enabled Galway to have 30 hours' start of London in the matter of departure; and as to the advantages of Galway as a place for the reception of telegraphic messages, its importance could hardly be overrated. It was absurd to say that indulgences similar to those given to the Galway Company had not been given to others, tecause it so happened that the Royal Mail Company, trading to the West Indies, received a subsidy of £22,000 a-year. The Government had taken a most ex traordinary course within a shori, time upon this question. They had terminated the contract suddenly, and now they had agreed to the motion for a committee of inquiry. The very fact of their agreeing to the motion was a proof that they themselves entertained a doubt as to the correctnesss of the course they had previously taken. Could any com mittee afford them any information beyond what they had already in their possession? Why had they not-that evening boldly and openly defended their past proceedings? ould they be bound by the decision ot the committee ? These were questions which ought to be answered. He be lieved that the whole proceeding with regait to the con tract was at variance with Parliamentary precedents, and that there never had been any fixed determination on the part of the Government in the matter. It was somewhat singular that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in answer to a deputation, should have a quitted that he was wholly un acquainted with the circumstances of the case; and this w s the more extraordinary, seeing the intimate relationship which existed between him and the Government. He com plained that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not been made acquainted with the intentions of his colleagues on this question, which, although in some respects a depart mental question, originated in, and should be viewed as a matter of, imperial policy. He should wish for some distinct explanation from the Government as to whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was for the future to take part in all shows and pageants, but have no share in any real act of government. He did not look forward in at all a sanguine manner to the result of the labour of the committee, for nothing satisfactory cculd ever be arrived at until Ireland was given that position which its geographical situation entitled it to. Mr. CARDWELL had no doubt that the inquiry would b© conducted with all justice and propriety. He could not adMit that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was ignorant of the intentiona of the Government, although, as it was not a purely Irish question, but an imperial question, he was not asked to express any opinion on the subject. He should not enter into the b o.ener -11 question, but would only express his satisfaction th4t the matter was to be referred to a select committee. _ . _ Col. DICKSON considered that the hon, member for Galway deserved the thanks of the house for the manner in which ha had brought the subject before them. The attack of the hon. membefor Montrose only proved the hostility to the Galway Companywhich he always entertained, and he had, in order to carry out the feeling, been at much trouble to misrepresent the real state of the case. He contended that the company was composed of the last persons in the world to have anything to do with a commercial sham. It was only after the election and the defeat of Lord Derby that this cry against the company was raised, and it was clear that hon. gentlemen had not cared to use it on the hustings. Heshou'd have preferred the matter being brought before the house in a substantive form, and that the subsidy should be continued until the committee reported. He denied that the hon. mem bar for Galway had appealed to the house ad miscricordia, for he believed that Galway was fully entitled to the sup. port she asked. Mr. DUNLOP disclaimed the imputation that he had acted in the spirit of a partisan in anything connected with the contract in question. He believed, as cuairman of the committee on contracts, he had conducted the business be- fore i most impartially. The noble lord opposite had con founded two questions, totally distinct, the propriety of maintaining a post at Galway, and the question whether the contract with the company iiiquestion should be continued. He hoped the Government would never decide a question of this sort in reference to political feelings, but in reference to the merits of the question itself. Mr. ENNIS thanked the Government for the concession in acceding to the appointment of this committee. He had long enter tamed the idea of establishing which they had mad Communication between the west of Ireland and America, and should be perfectly ready to afford the committee all the information in his power on the question. It was no part of the duty of tho Postmaster-General to speculate on the speed of the Parana, The proper course was to have put the vessel on trial. He had every confidence that the proposed committee would consider the question fairly and f 41 17.. (Hear, hear.) Colonel qu p_,'VILLE said that long before the contract was annulled an'iuciinakion had been shown to upset the contract. The Pos tmaster -General had stated that, cm. traiy to the usual practice, the contract had been givep without competition. Now that was a question into which the rostrlasier7qeneral h a d no right to enter. (Heir, 11,9F1 no conduct or the I l oottuuter!Qenefal could nos be defended. It was unworthy of him, because the com pany had been unable to complete their contract owing to the conduct of Government, and on account of conditions which had not been contemplated originally, as the Admi ralty themselves admitted, to break off the contract. It was better to borrow a form of expression from the noble lord (lord J. Russell), that ten Ministers should perish rather than that the just claims of Ireland should be disree garded, and the just expectations of the people disappointed Mr. MAGuntE would give no thanks to the Government for not opposing the motion ; because, if a division had been taken, every Irish member on the opposition side of the house, and many of their own supporters, would have gone into the lobby against them. The Galway contract brought Sir S. Cunard into Cork harbour, and those who were inte rested in Cork could not therefore do anything to injure that contract. One successful enterprise in Ireland led to another, and Irish people were quite as able to manage their own affairs as people in England were able to manage them for them. As an instance of this he mentioned that some time ago a company was established in Cork called the St. George's Company, which was managed in Liverpool —it failed, and involved in its failure the ruin of hundreds of families. Another company was started; but this time tha management was in the hands of Cork men, and it was as successful as any company in the United Kingdom. Its success gave rise to other companies. One successful enter prise gave rise to twenty others, and therefore this question of the Galway contract was one cf national importance to Ireland, and so it was regarded by the Irish people. He knew many who were not connected with the west of Ire land who had subscribed their money to the company, not for the purpose of making money, but for the purpose of de veloping the undeveloped resources of that country, which had been so neglected by the House of Commons. No doubt it was the uncertainty in which they were left that paralysed the efforts of this co m p an y, an d this result was owing to the Scotch radical members. He trusted that the Government would have none of the Scotch radical element upon this committee. (Laughter.) Let them appoint five thoroughly honest John Bulls, five honest and impartial men, and Ireland would be satisfied with their decision. It was said that the hon. member for Montrose had some connection with a particular line that felt the rivalry of the Galway line. That might be true or not, but at all events he exhibited a strong bias as a Scotch radical on this ques tion. He believed that Lord Derby entered into this eon tract on fair and just grounds; but whatever were the motives under which the contract was made, it ought not to be disturbed on political grounds. (Hear, hear. He de nied that any compact had been made with the Government, or that any threat had been held out to them. He had been spoken to by the Rev Mr. Daly on this question, and the answer he gave him was that, though in favour of the Gal way contract, he was committed body and soul to the paper question—(laughter)—that he could not vote against the Government. He hoped that in this matter justice would be done to Irelend, which had suffered much injustice from all parties. Mr. B. OSBORNE—I am neither a Scotch Radical, nor a shareholder in the Galway company, nor committed body and soul to the question bar,a thu houoo but, If I were committed body and soul, I should feel bound to vote in support of the motion. The hon. member for Galway, in bringing forward this question, has, I think, entitled himself not only to the thanks of Great Britain in general but of Ireland in particular for the very lucid statement he has made, and for some of the declarations it has been the means of eliciting, not from members of the Government, but from this House of Parliament. It was my hon. friend the member for Montrose who said that the surveyors at Liverpool who surveyed the Hibernia passed an opinion that she showed symptoms of weakness. I think, if those surveyors had inspected her Majesty's Government on this question (a laugh), they would also have been obliged to pro - nounce an opinion that in granting this committee so readily the Government have shown symptoms of weakness (hear) ; at any rate, that their bottom required some scraping (much laughter), and that like that unfortunate ship the Hibernia, they were now rather on their beam ends. (Hear, and a laugh.) I complain of the conduct of the Irish Govern ment on this matter. I keep clear of the particular com pany. I take the bold lino of it being necessary to cherish and nourish Ireland in some way; but I say the Govern ment have shown symptoms of weakness on this principle. Either they ought Lot to have terminated the contract in such an excessive hurry—either they have shown ignorance in making it a purely departmental question; or, having come, as an united Cabinet, to a conclusion that it ought to be terminated, they ought not to have turned round and granted this committee. (Hear, hear.) I say they have rather discredited themselves, in my opinion, than done themselves good by showing these symptoms of weakness, like that noble vessel the Hibernia. (A laugh.) So much for the Government. Now for a point to which I should not have reverted bat for what fell from my hon, friend the member for Montrose. He has taken upon himself—l must say in partial ignorance of facts—to style this new com pany, forgetting there have been two distinct companies, a commercial sham. Does the hon. gentleman know who is the chairman of the company? Let me tell him the chair man of that company is one of the first commercial men not only in Ireland, but, I believe, in Great Britain. It is Mr. Malcomson —a gentleman whose acquaintance I have the honour to rejoice in. What is his status in the commercial world ? Mr. Malcomson is not only the largest c tton spinner in Ireland, but the greatest proprietor of steam boats in the United Kingdom. He is the chairman of the Galway Company. And when nay hon. friend says that the directors are men of straw and the whole thing a commer cial sham, I say that it is no such thing. Whatever is opinion of my hon. friend the member for Montrose, I can tell this house that the chairman and directors of the com pany are as solvent men as any merchants in her Majesty's dominions. (Hear, hear.) I think the English members ought to be guarded against the representations which have been put forward-'-not by the member for Montrose, or the Scotch Radicals, for, whatever may be their opinions on Maynooth, upon mercantile transactions they have no hatred of Ireland—but by the Irish Government. The question is, how is the Irish Government to be carried on ? For the Secretary of Ireland to rise and say this is a purely departmental question is not telling us how Ireland should be dealt with. What are the facts of the case ? I was astonished to find that that most estimable nobleman the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in answer to a deputation, stated he knew nothing whatever of what was going on on the other side of the water, and no one could have been so surprised as his Excellency when he awoke one fine morning and found that the Postmaster -General had put an end to the Galway contract. If that is the way in which you carry on the Government of Ireland, it is ut terly impossible that your Government or any other Go vernment can be popular there. (Hear, hear.) Ido not look at this question as a mere question of the Galway Con tract, but if you are to support the institution of the Lord- Lieutenancy you must make it a reality. (Hear, hear.) The reason I have always objected to the continuance of the Lord-Lieutenancy is, not that I object t.) the office of Lord- Lieutenant, but that you have made him such a king Log that he is of no use. (Hear, hear.) If I wanted an argu ment against the Lord-Lieutenancy I could not have a stronger one than this case. (Hear, hear.) Here you have a nobleman hi the receipt of a paltry sum as Viceroy. (Cheers.) I say it is a paltry sum—l don't like to bring in names—the names of royalty—but he gets £20,030 to exercise the office of Viceroy, and you have made him a man of no power, not able to give an opinion, and then the right hon. gentleman comes down and tells us this is a de partmental question. (Hear, hear.) Without any reference to the Galway contract, this becomes a serious question whether the Lord-Lieutenant ought to be kept in the posi tion he now is. (Hear, hear.) It is all very well to talk of justice to Ireland and to throw out fine phrases in this house —(hear)—but having a long and intimate acquaintance with Ireland, I say she ought to share in the saute benefits which you give to this and the sister country. You com• plain that she knows very little of you. She only sees you in the most disagreeable form, when the judges of assize go their circuits, and then she is told she ought to bless her self for the connexion. (Hear, hear.) It the Government had done their duty they ought to have looked at this ques tion as one far beyond a mere departmental question. (Hear, hear.) I don't go on to the question of the Galway Contract or the objects of this company, but I say that neither this nor any other Government can shut their eyes to the just wants of Ireland—(hear, hear)—and without going into the Paper Duty question, my support of this or any other Government which may come after it would materially , de pend upon the way in which they treat the sister kingdom. (Hear, hear.) Mr. CARDWELL—The hon. gentleman has entirely mistaken me. I did not say that this was a departmental question ; on the contrary, that, regarding it as an imperial question, it had been settled hero by the department by which it was begun and by the Government collectively, to whom the responsibility belonged. (Hear, hear.) Mr. DISRAELI—Being the individual who signed the Galway Contract, I trust the house will not think it pie sumptuous on my part if I make one or two observations before the discussion closes. (Hear.) A year has elapsed and I find the task of defending the policy of that contract not so difficult as a twelvemonth ago it might have seemed. (Hear, hear.) Time and the truth which time often brings appear to have influenced public opinion. Little less than a year ago the attention of this house was called to the pro • posal for another select committee on the same subject, but moved in a very different spirit and with a very different object. (Cheers.) A year has gone round and "the engi neer" is "hoist with his own petard." (Laughter.) There is a committee again to be appointed on the Galway Contract, but I think the labours of these gentlemen who will serve on it will be animated by a different meaning from that which influenced those who came to a decision on our recent com mittee. Looking at this question generally, what is urged against the policy of this contract ? There were many ob jections urged against the policy, but they all seem to have disappeared. (Hoar, hoar.) The noble lord the Secretary of State the other night said that no one could far a moment impugn the policy of the contract; and I think myself he would bo a bold man who did it. (Cheers.) Looking at the relative positions of America and the United Kingdom I think ha would certainly assume a perilous position who would impugn the policy of selecting, or establishing a communication between the two countries—those two points by which the nearest communication could take place. It was placed before us, that if this service were established at Galway, as between Liverpool and Galway, with respect to reaching America there would be in favour of Galway a saving of at least 30 hours' voyage, and as reg;d;;ele: graphic communication, question and answer both con sidered, there would be an absolute saving of eight days. (Cheers.) Even in 1858 that was an important considera . tion with statesmen; is it less important in 1861 ? (Hear.) No one now, therefore, according to the authority of the Secretary of State, impugns the p o li c y, b u t th e means by _ _ which it is carried into effect, are still, though much more faintly, abused. A subsidy, it is said, is a means which is highly to be deprecated and objected to. It is, we are told, the office of private capital, unassisted by the credit of the State, to undertake enterprises of this character. But does private companies undertake the enterprises of this nature ? What evidence have we that if the Government of 1858 had not interfered any private enterprise with this object would have been established ? (Hear, hear.) Is not all the evidenc3 the other way ? (Cheers.) This is 4 want wi ich icta lQng been felt. Philosophers and politicians had king recognised its im portance, merchants and traders have asserted that it was an object of the fist nuossity, and for years they did this, but no steps were ever taken by them to accomplish their purpose. (Cheers.) There w are placed before the Govern ment representations in favour of this communication between Galway and the nearest point of America, signed by all the great capitalists, all the great firms and the Chambers of Commerce in the country. (Hear.) But they did not stir in the matter, and the Government took the responsibility of interfering. They took means of ascertaining whether there was any prospect of private enterprise, or private capital, unassisted and unsanctioned by the Government, taking it up, and they leant from all quarters that the supposition was quite illusory. And very naturally so. Had not this country for a long period of years adopted a different policy on a most extensive scale, and sanctioned the interference of the State ? (If ear.) Had you not had considerable and extensive services from various ports of England, assisted by subsidies from the Treasury to a large amount ? Were not they proofs that private capital could not efficiently un dertake the duty, and could you expect private capital in Ireland to effect that which private capital in England shrank from attempting ? (Cheers.) We ourselves believed that it was of the utmost importance for the public welfare and generally for the advantage of Ireland that this com munication should be established. (Hear.) But then we are told that we m a d e a great mistake, because, having come to chat opinion, we did not put the enterprise up to public competition, The subject was well considered by the Government of Lord Derby, and it was the result of their deliberation that nothing could be more unwise, and indeed, to a certain degree, nothing could be more unjust than to put that service up to competition. We found a company before us established to a certain extent, and in possession of a colonial contract which gave it a great ad vantage—(hear)—but at the same time we were assured, and we believe f and still believe that, if we had resolved upon estab:ishing that communication between Ireland and Ame rica by competition, great companies, with the command of large capital, whose interest it was to prevent any such com munication, would have taken advantage of that public machinery of competition, and ultimately would virtually have suppressed the very enterprise we wished to foster. (Cheers. Whether, therefore, we look to the policy of the enterprise, which is no longer impugned, or to the means to which we had recourse, and which I with confidence vindicate, thsre is no point to which objection can be taken. But then we are told that though the policy might be right, and though the means might not be questioned, yet the conduct of the company, when once we had granted this contract, was so unsatisfactory and so unequal to the occasion that they had no claim whatever to the considera tion of the State, and that the conduct of the Government in the course they have recently taken was not only justi fied but necessary. But is that the fact? (Hear, hear.) There is no doubt that it was an enterprise of no slight difficulty to establish this communication between Ireland and America. (Hear, hear.) The very difficulty alone jus tified the interposition a the State, and that interposition was not an accessory but the condition of success. It was the credit and strength which the sanction and assistance of the State gave which allowed the company, and could alone allow the company, to succeed. What eves the assistance which the Sr ate gave after the policy was adopted and the contract signed ? I say it was an alternation of neg lect and menace. (Cheers.) That is the complete history of the relations between the Government and the Galway Company. It was the cheerful grant of the subsidy which was the foundation of the credit and capital of the company. (Cheers.) There was no other reason which could justify the interference of the State, and chilling and churlish as-. sistance really prevented its success. (Hear, hear.) It was worse than chilling and churlish. It was critical and hostile from the beginning. What was the reason of this conduct on the part of the Government? There was a dissolution of Parliament, a change of Ad ministration, and those who were responsible for the policy and who signed the contract left office. What was the cause of the conduct of our successors? I confess lamat a loss to say. Nothing has surprised me more than that noble lords and right hon. gentlemen oppo site, when they have acceded to office, should have always felt it one of their first duties to blacken the conduct and character of their predecessors. (Cheers.) I should have thought that they might have been contented with their success. Their triumph has generally been obtained on easy terms. I think that, considering the unnatural coalitions which have some times been called into existence to expel us from power, the impossible pledges, and the impracticable policy to which they have given their public adhesion, in order that they might sit on these benches, might have satisfied them. (Cheers.) No one on this bench, at least, has ever begrudged them their triumt h, however obtained. With such unequi vocal success at least they might have spared themselves the task always to blacken the character and conduct of their predecessors. (Hear, hear.) It was the same in 1852. It was the same in 1859. In 1852 we were responsible foe the conduct of the Admiralty. We were in office less than a year. The Duke of Northumberland was then First Lord. He found the affairs of the Admiralty in no satisfactory state. There was great alarm in the country, and a great call on the Government to produce a Channel fleet. To the Duke of Northumberland alone, supported, of course, with the entire sympathy of his colleagues, belongs the credit that in less than a year we had a Channel fleet. (Hear, hear.) So far the Government in 1 , 52 might have left office without any attempt on the part of their success ful rivals to blacken the conduct of that department. But, on the contrary, a most amiable and accomplished man, much beloved in this house, and by all who knew him was hunted to death by the noble lord. (Cheers from the Op position; and cries of " Oh I" and " Question I" from' the Ministerial benches.) The most exaggerated and miser able charges were brought against him for conduct which all his predecessors had been allowed to pursue with impu nity, in order to raise a cry against the Government of the day. (Cheers.) In the year 1859 there was only the Gal way contract, and I should conceal my convictions if I did not say that the licence of public life was stretched to create an unjust odium against the Government. (Cheers.) What is the consequences of these illegitimate means of attempting to createafalse sympathy and raisean unfounded an unjust odium against the conduct of their predecessors? (Hear.) If I had really perpetrated that job which lam described in the public prints to have done, and which some in this house have insinuated that I have done, do you think I should have drawn the contract in the form in which it appears on the table now for our consideration ? Remember, that until this Galway contract it was in the power of the Government, on their own authority, to enter into these contracts, and Parliament had no control over them. Who was the first Minister who put in that language which brought these contracts under the supervision of the House of Commons. Why, it was. the Chancellor of the Ex chequer of the Administration of Lord Derby. (Cheers.) And I say that if I had larch influenced by those corrupt motives which have been imputed, should I have put that language into a contiact which made it amenable to Parlia ment, or should I not rather have shrouded the contract in the old language of such engagements, which would have permitted .me to have defied the criticism of Parliament ? (Hear.) I did nothing of the kind. I sanctioned the remo delling of these contracts because I felt that the Govern ment of which I was a member would not have ratified a contract which they did not believe was for the public wel fare, and because I thought that my successor in office, whoever he might be, would be animated by far too exalted and generous sentiments to find time at such a moment to blacken the conduct of his predecessor. (Cheers.) After a year has passed, the conspiracy havingsucceeded, no doubt —es here do we find ourselves ? We have had, I think, as remarkable a piece of Parliamentary conduct with reference to this contract on the part of her Majesty's Government as I ever recollect. The motien of the hon. member for Galway was, in fact, a vote of censure. (Cheers,) It was a, proposition that the house should appoint a committee to consider the announced decision of the Cabinet. (Cheers ) If the committee came to a different decision from the Ca binet the only logical conclusion should have been that the committee should sit on these benches. (Cheers and laugh ter.) Every effort was made on the part of her Majesty's Government that there should be no mistake or misconcep tion on this poi n t. Th e i r friend a however, annoyed by their policy in this respect, charitably intimated—to use the lan guage of the evenings—that it was a departmental error. (A laugh). But the Government would not for a moment agree that it was a departmental error. It was a policy upon which Cabinet Councils were ostentatiously called, upon which they pompously sat, and the result of which was announced to us with ostentation by the Prime Minister. (Cheers and laughter.) They had considered the subject. The Postmaster-General had nothing to do with it, or had only an infinitesimal portion of responsibility. It was a Cabinet question. The Cabinet had decided, and the noble lord threw down his glove on the floor of the house. (Loud cheers.) The hon. member for Galway gave notice of a motion that, notwithstandin g the decision of the Cabinet, the question should be remitted to the consideration of a committee. (Hear.) What does that mean ? Why, that we are not satisfied with the policy of the Government. We are not content with the decision of the Cabinet. (Cheers.) If that is not a question of confidence, what is a question of confidence ? (Hear.) This is the state into which wo are brought by the tortuous policy of the Government now and then blackening an oppcinent, new and then laying a trap to injure a body of public , men, now and then dis appeinting supporters, who placed confidence in them, now and then using this contract as an object of defiance by which to punish those who regarded • more the interest of their country than the interests of the Government. (Loud cheers.) And it is come to this—to a scene of unprecedented humiliation, remarkable, I must say, this night, for an un rivalled exposition of Irish policy by the Secretary of the Lord-Lieutenant. (Cheers.) I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman still retains the constitutional title of Secre tary to the Lord-Lieutenant. (Laughter.) Generally speaking, when principals are not contented with their seereteries they dismiss them but here we h ave th e Secre tary of the Lord-Lieutenant Of Ireland agreeing in the Ca binet to a policy of the greatest importance to the country, of which his Excellency, as it now turns out, on evidence which no one can question, was kept in entire ignorance. (Hear and laughter.) That is a very remarkable state of affairs. I am perfectly aware of the objections which have been urged against the office of the Lord-Lieutenant, and by none with more liveliness and force than by the hon. and gallant member for Liskeard. There may be abuses, but I believe they arise from neglect and non-appreciation of t he real cha racter of the office. Ido not think that they constitute a sufficient reason why we should abolish a post now of antiquity, of great distinction and authority, which by good management and proper appreciation on the part of the home Government might be made to exercise a sub stantial power and a most beneficial influence in Ireland. (Hear.) But where is the authority of the Lord-Lieutenant, after the exposition of his policy which has been given to-night by his Secretary, who has rather aggravated his sins by his explanation P (Laughter and cheers.) If it'had been a mere departmental question—though what thatjar gon means I cannot in the least comprehend—that was no reason why the Lord-Lieutenant should be kept in igno rance of the decision. But, as we are now told, it is an Imperial question, in which Ireland is deeply concerned, and that upon such a question the chief governor of Ire • land should not be consulted, appears to me really mon strous. (Hear, hear.) Well, w e s h a ll have a comm itt ee sitting upon a subject which h as a l rea d y rece i ve d the ma ture deliberation of her Majesty's Ministers. (Laughter.) It will be curious far us to asc er t a i n w h et h er th e y agreed in their conclusions ; whethe r th ey di ffere d ; if they differed, how they differed, and which opinion had pre ponderance o in the assembly. (Hea r .) I s h a l l awa i t t h e reportthe I committee with con s id era bl e i nterest . M e anwhile may say that these discussions, which have now occupied nearly 12 months, more or less, have not been without result. Whatever may be the policy of this Government, I believe that the policy of England towards Ireland has received from these discussions a new aspect, which I hope may lead to a future that may realise the hopes of the most ardent gca n and friends of th at country. (L ou d an d renewe d cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—It can excite no suprise on the part of tho se w h o h ave w atched thecouuchrse ficlaatii administration in this co un t ry o f l a t e years that the right hon. gentleman should express grea t resentment, much somewhat of grief that the conduct cif the successive Go vernments of which he has boas a member should in variably, when they have been overthrown by advero Ma jorities, become the subject of public censure; (t , Hear, hear," and laughter.) That can mite wonder is rather that the torren_t of no surprise. The indignation should so lon g! 3 , 14 ):.! 11 41 113 and should only have hunt its Ibounds upon the present occasion, for the purpose of exciting those cheers which have so loudly followed the sitting down of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.) I must say, however, that there was one part of the speech of the right hon, gentleman which did excite astonishment in my mind, The right hon. gentleman alluded to a melancholy event, deplored by all who had the honour and pleasure of acquaint ance with Mr. Stafford, the late member for Northampton. an event which was totally unconnected with political mat ters, and was the result purely of physical disease, and I must say, without casting a reflection on the medical science of the sister isle, of medical mismanagement. With a taste and feeling to which I shall not advert, the right hon . gentleman was pleased to say that my hon. friend—for s 6 I may call him —was hunted to death. I never in the course of my life heard an observation less founded on fact—(hear, hear)—more impertinent to the question under considera tion, or less becoming a person occupying the position of the right hon. gentleman. (Hear.) I shall not follow the right hon. gentleman in discussing the merits or demerits of the Administration of 1852. I will not even go into a discus sion of the conduct of the late Government in regard to the granting of the Galway Contract, or the motives, time, and. circumstances of that transaction. Much might be said on that subject—(hear)—but it is a question which has gone by. If there was anything in the granting of that contract which. exposed the late Government to criticism, it has been con doned. (Hear, and a laugh.) The matter was referred to a committee of the house, on whose report the contract was acknowledged and carried on. It is made a reproach to the present Government that they referred the matter to a com mittee ; but, as the contract was to depend on money to bet voted by Parliament, as there was great difference of opinion on the question at the time in the house, and as it turned on detailed information, I think it was the duty of tlee Go vernment to refer the matter to a select cemmitteee and not allow it to be discussed merely on the vote in Committee of Supply. (Hear.) The company having been acknowledged and their contract continued, it was our duty to see that they fulfilled the engagements which they had undertaken. They failed on several occasions to fulfil the conditions of the contract, and repeatedly received extensions of time and other indulgences. A certain time having elapsed, we found that failures were still taking place, and arrived at the opinion that the company did not contain in itself the elements of faithful and efficient performance of the con tract. It therefore became our duty, in performance of the obligations we had undertaken, to tell the company that no further time could be allowed, and that the contract must,, therefore, be terminated. (Hear.) We are told that it in an act of weakness, a piece of self-condemnation, to agree to the committee now moved for. I say it is in exact accord ance with the course which we pursued on the former oc casion, in regard to maintaining the contract. It is pen fectly true that we felt that if we had resisted this proposal we should have been left in a minority. We deemed it ourselves to be a reasonable proposal, and we believe that others shared that opinion. Instead of being an act of weak ness, it was the only eourse which a Government acting without passion or prejudice, and wishing simply that the merits and justice of the case should be ascertained, could pursue. (Hear.) The only person in the house who, I think, should have voted against the proposal is the noble lord opposite, who, in his speech, gave what appeared to me strong reasons for such a vote. Then we are told that in acting as we have done we have slighted the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland. (Hear, hear.) I w ould ask where the contract was made, and who sanctioned it. Was it made in Ireland, or did it receive the sanction of the Lord-Lieutenant ? (Hear, hear.) We were just now told by the honourable gentleman that it was a contract made by the Government of this country upon Im p-rial considerations, to be paid for out of the Impe rial revenue, and to be sanctioned by Parliament. I say, therefore, that if a question arose as to whethee the contract should be continued or not, the same authority by which it was originally made —namely, the Imperial Government, was called upon to determine whether it should be cola tinned. This being so, it was not fair to throw upon the Lord-Lieutenant a responsibility which did not belong to him, or t o take him into council upon a matter of Imperial policy which in no degree formed part of his functions. So far from casting any slight up on th e l eg i t i mate authority vested in him, "say that we should have been going out of our way if we had remitted to him a question the decision upon, which belonged solely to the Government of this country, and in thus acting we pursued the natural course, the course followed by our predecessors, and the only course which ought to be followed by the Government upon a question of this kind. (Hear.) The Lord-Lieutenant, how ever, was informed o f t h e decision which was taken. The; noble lord himself read a passage, from which it appeared that the Lord-Lieutenant knew of our decision, though he said be was not aware of all the detailed reasons upon which.. that decision was founded. Now, as the decision was not his, it was unnecessary to take him into council and inform him of all the steps by which it was arrived at, it was enough to tell him what the decision was, and, therefore, the answer which he gave was a perfectly obvious and na tural one. There is nothing in that transaction which in the slightest degree affects the functions or the position of the Lord-Lieutenant, and if gentlemen have no better rea son than that for proposing the abolition of the office, I think the ground for making such a proposal exceedingly trivial. (Hear.) Great complaints have been made by Irish •nembers in the course of this debate that sufficient attentionis not paid by the Government to the interests of Ireland —(Opposition cheers) —that Ireland is neglected; and that there is hostility on our part towards Ireland. (Cheers.) Really, to accuse the Government of hostility to one-third of the United Kingdom implies, I think, less wisdom on the part of those who make the assertion than the accusation imputes to those against whom it is made. (Hear, hear.) Why, of late years, the whole course of legislation has been for the benefit of Ireland. (" No I") When you talk of Ireland, I presume you consider it as part of the United Kingdom. I presume we are not discussing Ireland as if it were a colony sepa rated in its interests from the rest of the country, locally situated, and unconnected, except by sovereignty, with this country. (Hear, hear.) I say that every measure which is proposed and carried for the benefit of the country at large is a measure from which Ireland also derives her share of benefit. All those improvements in commerce and in internal administration of every kind, which have re sulted from the labours of Parliament during the last 20 years, are measures from which Ireland has derived as much ben efitas England. These advantae esare not confined to one part of the United Kingdom. The repeal of Customs duties, the freedom of commerce—any mea sures w hi c h add to the wealth and prosperity of the United Kingdom —confer equal benefits on Ireland with the rest of the country. No man who compares the state of Ireland now with its state 20 years ago —no man can traverse the country, or can go the slightest distance through it, without seeing the vast improvement which has taken place there. (Hear, hear.) I dare say I shall be told by those who are so much alive to result he o f intereststhof I e native ti Ireland an d h t a energies t of this t iherapperoopvl people—(hear, t e ( n h t ha s e been hear)—of r the )_ o f their industry, intelligence, activity, the fertility of the soil, and the natural resources of the country. (Hear, hear.) But will all these elements ',recluse national pro sperity unless superintended by a good Government ? When a nation is prosperous, when intelligence and industry reap the legitimate reward of their exertions, when the natural resources of a country are developed by the activity of its people—whop you see such a result you may con fidently assert that that country is well governed. On the other hand, when you see intelligence cramped, industry deprived of its proper reward, a fertile soil lying waste and uncultivated, and great natural resources unproductive to man, you may safely predicate the existence there of a ba n, G. (Hear, hear.) The greatly increased ha ppiness and prosperity of Irela n d of late years show, I think, convincingly that the Government under which such. results are brought about is not liable to the imputations made against the present Ministry of being neglectful of the interests and hostile to the welfare of Ireland. (Hear, hear.) I shall not pursue this subject further. I am of opinion that the course proposed by the hen. member for Galway is a proper one. We are perfectly willing to sub mit to the committee the reasons upon which we thought it our duty as guardians of the public purse to announce the termination of the contract. It will be for the committee to judge whether those reasons are sufficient, or whether any excuses which the company can offer for the non-per formance of their engagements are such as will justify the Government and Parliament in continuing the subsidy which under the contract the company are entitled to receive. (Hear, hear.) Mr. E. P. BOUVERIE, who spoke amidst a good deal of interruption, said the point was that this contract had been given to 'the -Galway Company without the competition. which had been promised. He also deprecated the allusion which had been made to his deceased friend, and the state ment that he had been hunted to death. The truth was that the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks had taken this opportunity of; waggering about those matters out of which he and his friends had not come out in the best way possible. He regretted that this committee should have been appointed, for there were no facts to be ascer tained, but the real object seemed to be to set this contract.. on its legs again. If this course was to be pursued it h be the first time in the history of this country t sumed House of Commons had, by one of its committeaa,lßa the executive functions and arranged the terms 01 at the remarks con tract of this kind. He hoped that the result o would show that the course which had beer. pursued e_t_h.e.i,nwOuasirl• right hen. one. Lord J. MANNERS expressed his regteet a ft t h e Stafford. said, why lwaftot d uth i h ' ? e a . °ll T , h t h e e late ri which had fallen from the noble lea a had gentleman in reference to Mr. Augustus right hon. gentleman really mean. Govern ment,he no not divide i N v v i i d i e c h the e h h o a u d s et the e n step which they member,had taken • in no desire to shrink from any reference to the whole affair. thepain Mr. H. HERBERT expressed . he felt at hearing Stafford being bandied about the house. He name of Mr. Sta t the death of that 1 lamented gentle • He had been present a state that • could surely nothing whatever in man, and he eth the Galway contract had anything to do connection w; event. with that lamentab le paid h* Mr. NE\VDEGATE a igh tribute to the memory' of Mr. Stafford, of whom he said that, if he had been de fended by his friends . as strongly as he was assailed by his enemies, his reputation would have remained in a different position. He had done nothing Which had not been done htohneoeurubioef:tbt before, and it would be fortunate for Parliament if no future member ever was connected with darker practices. r al Colonel DUNNE expressed an opinion that the present Government was e xceedingly unpopular in Ireland, and no create taxationl t,haenydhna odt spendone aimptehnen penny country inth e e w o a u u s t t o r y i . n - e its The motion was then agree d to. passed. The East India Loan Bill was read a third time and The Local Government Act Bill passed through commit tee peo forma. The order for the Committee on the Municipal Corpora tions Act, was discharged. The amendment,: to the Locomotive Bill were considered and agreed to. The third reading of the Courts of Justice Bill was post poned till Moor' ay. The houso went into committee on the Harbours Con solidated Fund, for the purpose of passing a preliminary resolution, on which to found a bill. The resolution was agreed to, and the further consideration of the subject was fixed for Tuesday next. Annoyance to Jurors (Westminster) Bill was read a third time and passed. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the . house adjourned at a quarter-past one o'clock. LONDON : Printed and Published by MURD 0 YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at ThE SUN Cam, No. 112,Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the Coup,ty at Middlesex Saturday, June 15, um