The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-08-10 00:00:00

FREIGHT MARKET.

During the past week all timber freights from
the White Sea, Canada, and the Baltic, are fully
maintained. Coal freights to the Mediterranean
and Adriatic ports are lower, in consequence of
late large arrivals for China. Activity prevailed,
and accounts from India are very favourable.

The Queen arrived at Balmoral yeste day even-
ing at half-past five o'clock.
The Indian budget is to be brought forward on
Monday. It was stated in the discussion last
night, and not contradicted, by Sir Charles Wood,
that a large loan would be involved, but this is
presumed to be a misconception. •
At an adjourned meeting of the creditors •of
Messrs. Thomas Randall, Parker, and Co., army
boot contractors, of Higham Ferrers, near North-
ampton, it was resolved to accept an amended
composition of Bs. 6d. in the pound.
The creditors of Messrs. Ridley and Son, hid
and leather merchants, of Newcastle-on-Tyne,
have agreed, on the recommendation of the com-
mittee appointed to investigate the estate, to an
offer of 4s. in the pound.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-YESTERDAY.

The European Forces (India) Bill was brought up from the
Commons, and read a first time.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH urged some objections to the
measure, which he declared it was his intention to oppose at a
future stage.
The Local Government Act (I 858) Amendment Bill was read
a third time and passed.
The report of amendments on the Tramways (Ireland) Bill
was brought up and agreed to.
On the motion of Earl Granville,
The Ecclesiastical Commission Bill was read a second time,
after some discussion.
The Rifle Volunteer Bill passed through csmmittse.
The Industrial Museum (Scotland) Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Tenure and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Bill was
read a third time and passed.
Some other bills were advanced a stage; and their lordships
adjourned at eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--YESTERDAY.

The House met at twelve o'clock.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. ADDRULET called attention to the plans for the improve.
ment of the National Gallery, strongly recommending that of
Captain Kowke.
A discussion followed, in which strong protests were made
against the retention of the Royal Academy In the present
building, contrary to the decision of the committee and a
direct understanding.
Mr. COOPER promised to explain the matter fully when the
estimate for the National Gallery was brought forward.
Sir J. B.trallo complained of the manner in which the civil
service accounts were audited and appropriated. The most
important accounts never came before the audit commissioners
at all.
Mr. LAING entered into explanations on the subject, alleging
that the Audit Office had not at present sufficient machinery
for a complete audit, and that many considerations must be
entertained before a more perfect system could be established.
The Government were well aware of the necessity of a change,
and were sincerely resolved to apply themseive3 to the sub.
ject during the recess, with the view of bringing forward a
measure next session.
A resolution proposed by Sir G. Baring, that the present
system of audit and appropriation was imperfect and ought to
be amended, way agreed after a discussion and a promise
from the Home Secretary tto
hat a measure should be introduced
next session.
Mr. HassAito complained of the non-attendance of the
members of the Board of Commissioners of Charitable Dona-
tion* is Ireland, owing to which the business of the charities
was most inconveniently interrupted.
Mr. CARDwEtt stated that he had already taken steps to
remedy the evil by calling on the commissioners either to
attend or to resign,
The House then went into committee of supply, when the
rest of the sitting was occupied by the discussion of the civil
service estimates.

At the evening sitting,
Mr, BRIoIIT gave notice that to-morrow (Friday), be should
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question relative to the
excise duty on paper, and should call attention to the position
in which the house stood with respect to this question.
Sir C. WOOD gave notice that, on Monday next, he should
bring forward the Indian Budget, and in committee of the
whole house, should ask leave to bring in a bill authorising the
Indian Government to raise a loan of £3,000,000 sterling.
Mr. H. BAILLIfi enquired whether any application had be n
made to admit Spain to the rank of a first-rate power, and if
so, whether it is the intention of her Majesty's Oovernment to
withhold its consent so long as the Government of Spain con-
tinues to tolerate the slave trade and systematically to disre-
gard its treaties and engagements with this country.
Lord I. RusseLt replied that the French Government had
suggested to other great powers that Spain should he recog
is
-
nised as a first-rate state, and that Austria in assenting to th
proposition bad on its side proposed that S yeden should be
admitted to the same rank, If the claim of these states was
acknowledged, the British Government considered that no
and
just
reason existed for refusing a like privilege to Portug
a
Sardinia, in which case there would be .no fewer than nine
l
powers admitted to the first rank. The question was, however,
still under consideration, and no definite determination would
be arrived at during the present session.
On the motion for the second reading of the Fortifications
(Provision for Expenses) Bill,
Mr. E. JAaIES moved, by way of amendment, that before
proceeding farther with thi:s hill it is desirable that this
House should be to possession of further j.nformation as to
the entire cost of the construction and efficient insintenance
of the sea defences and the proposed land fortiheagona, dis-
tinguishing the expenses necessary to be inenrred Oe
country in respect of such proposed sea defences and land
fortilicatiOns•
Sir C. NapiEß seconded the amendment, contending that if
the fleet were properly organised, and the maritime supremacy
61 England secured, the ,proposed expenditure in stone bat-
teries would be altogether nnnecessary.
Mr. S. EPRIMUT, its reply, gVe some '?tlAitqgtions touching
the character and use of the proposed fortifications, and
described various contingencies niter ;which he maintained
the safety of the great arsenals would not be secured in the
fortificationsCol.land would pe utterly useless except in the event
of an rtificainvasion—an event 'which was either impossible, or if
possible, would
involve only the pert of London. He enforced
the expediency of
eftectlog considers* amgmentations in the
standing army. • • •

Lord E LC 110 thanked the Goyernnaent for Slut they 04 (lone,
and proposed to do, for the defence of the country. "The public
feeling, out of which a body of 148,000 volunteers bad arisen '
within the year, did not partake of a panic, but wes inspired by
the conviction that the country had been left in a state a dan-
gerous
unpreparedness for attack, and a determination to
render
England more secure hereafter. This sort of feeling
should support her Majesty's ministers in the measures they
were taking tor the same purpose.
After a few words from Captain Jervis,
ty, uponwaonu
lean oprromvoeu s
entirely
u expendituresel e s s .
1 "eeommended the Government to make further
Mr. MoNss •
for
enquiries before embarking
works which,
n matters of detail were made by Sir
Some comments upon .
G• Smith.
de Lacy Evans anti Sir G. • ..
1,,,i the oyiection he had tenant'
Mr. B. OssoaNS 'West,— .
, Cons ' had tend
that
earl bparrokinbabgili
urged against the plan of forti‘ea 1 ;no the ground .
the measure was introduced CO bite the session, was so '
imperfectly explained, and was not provided for in the finan-
cial arrangements for the year•
ending a further investigation '
Six M. Pero joined in reconinie
was i
spent for so ques
and deliberation before so large a sum. .
fortifications.
tionable a purpose as the proposed
Mr. SUITE urged that instead of beginning to erect stone
defences, the volunteer movement should be encouraged, and
the militia forces called into exkstati,ce• When the people had
c d f,nd their homes
arms in their hands they would be able Itc
and liberties. • • u Lai b'een (411 Y ,
Lord PALMERSTON observed that the questlo
e of the House
discussed on a previous occasion, and the seas
most ;unmistakably expressed by a division. The Government I
. measure
had been charged on one side with introducing this , hating
without sufficient in,vestigation, and on the other with
delayed it until 4 lgte
.pplocl of the session. To both he
_....c
replied that after the report of
.khe Refer= Cumrnissione rbco"m":
presented, thesubjeet bad undergone eptefY-1 elaquirl'• h the
petrnt authorities were engaged tp propose a plan/ Thic ‘‘.o.
adrelnietration had laid, after mature deliberation, hofcre 't
House. wt.;
rt le almost every member admitted the necessitY Aor
increasing the Means of defence, the most extensive divergency
existed in the methods that were severally recomMelulea'
gavel members 3u
ggeated napre ships, military members
demanded more soldiers, and the4wyers, he presumed, would
meet the :neroY with an injunction,' Atc.i.eli..t this diversity of
opinion, be Ma,intained that the plan suggested 4 tn•C Govern-
ment was the best. ,ft arose from no panic, and expressee o 4
suspicion of foreign Powers, but simply placed beyond the
reach of sudden attacks the storskpuses and arsenals, wherein
the material elements nt. 0....
13.viy were prepared anal
preserved.
The House divided, and the amendment .egatar, was • d by a
, t?.
majority of 143 to 32; majority, ill. . , .. ..
Tbe bill was then read a second time.
Cla the motion for going into committee on supply,
Sir M. Pero moved, as an amendment, a resolution setting

forth that it was expedient to discontinue the ordnance survey
on the twenty-five inch scale till the survey on the one inch
scale had been completed and published. To complete the
survey on the larger scale would, he maintained, involve a cost
of at least £3,000,000.
Mr. S. HERBERT said that no further surveys were to be
made this year, and the whole question would be laid before
Parliament next session.
After some discussion, the amendment was withdrawn, and
the House went into committee of supply.
Mr. LAIN, in bringing forward the vote for the Galway
packet contract, entered into a detail of the circumstances and
negotiations which had resulted in the conclusion of that con-
tract. The question which the Ministers had at present to
meet was very simple. There was a distinct contract in
existence, legally binding upon the Government. The select
committee who bad investigated the subject had reported
against the expediency of granting the money, but said nothing
touching the validity of the agreement; and the packet com-
pany had entered into engagements involving an outlay of
£480,00, and although some slight delay had occurred in fitting
out the steamers, the company were substantially ready to
carry out their undertaking with the Government. Even if
the contract were shown to be impolitic, there was no justifi-
cation for cancelling on that ground an agreement formally
concluded. If that principle were admitted, every contract,
including that with Sir S. Cunard, would be subject to doubt,
and liable to repudiation at the caprice of Parliament. The
clause in the contract specifying that the money to be paid to
the company must previously be voted by the House could not,
he argued, be employed to invalidate the agreement, since the
eompany were obliged to snake preparations for its fulfilment on
their side, and it would be most unjust to leave theft► to suffer
heavy lcsses on this account by refusing at the last moment to
vote the subsidy. The agreement might have been concluded
hastily, imprudently, and withoutldue consideration for
English and Canad an interests ; but it could not be said to
have been done corruptly, nor was it fair to visit the conse-
quences of what might perhaps be deemed a bad bargain for
the public, upon the heao of the innocent shareholders in the
enterprise. The question•should not be regarded as a merely
Irish question. It should be considered on broader grounds.
The time was past when any distinction should be drawn be-
tween different sections of the United Kingdom. English
representatives should view the subject without exclusive pre-
dilections, and vote upon the simple principle that a bargain
was a bargain, A vote for £60,000 for the Galway Packet
Subsidy was then proposed from the chair.
Mr. P. BoGVERIE moved that the vote should be disallowed.
The contract was improvident and unthrifty ; and the way in

which it was negotiated, and which the right hon. member

described at much length, left, he contended, no cause for
eonapiaint on the part of the company, if it were now cancelled
in the interest of the counter. The transaction would Rot bear
investigation. If this and the Canard co. tract were carried

out, the country would be saddled with an useless outlay of
£150,000 per annum for seven years. The Derby government
were much to be blamed in the matter. They concluded the
agreement in an extraordinary manner, the papers being taken
out of the customary course, and the bargain effected against
the distinct remonstrances of the ?oat-office department. If
any innocent person were endangered by cancelling the com-
pact, it would be much more economical to give them full
compensation than to carry out the bargain to its full extent.
Mr. WHlTT:sins said that the contract was made in the most
formal manner by the Government, and had hitherto been
faithfully fulfilled by the company. The service was more
punctually performed by these steamers than by those of the
Cunard line. The assertion that the bargain was struck pre-
cipitately on the eve of an election was totally contrary to the
facts. The establishment of a communication between Galway
and America had been contemplated for many years, and the
object was one calculated to produce the greatest benefit to
Ireland, Among the Irish population the opposition to the
contract was salyersally attributed to a jealous wish to with-
hold an advantage from that country for the sake of preserving

the English monopoly of the profitable transaction. One-third
of the postal communication with America came from Ireland,
and a still larger proportion of the passenger,; to the United
states, Thg Galway Company's strainers had carOed many
more perrous than the Cunard vessels, and as these were chiefly
steerage passengers, it was highly important to render the
voyage short, safe, and cheap„ Ireland had cle .r right to the
contract. It was one of the most benelieial improvements, not
only to Ireland, but to the whole empire, and in this conclusion
he believed everyto ly would agree before the term for which
it was concluded had expired.
Mr. CRAWFORD said that if Parliament had intended to refuse

the, subsidy, that refusal should have been intimated a year
ago, before the company had laid out their money in building
steamers. For this reason he intended to vote for the grant.
Sir G. BARING observed that the select committee, of which
he had been a member, had given no opinion touching the
validity of the contract, but simply recommended that it be put
an end to. He denied that those who disapproved of this
particular bargain were actnated by any hostility to Irish
interests. If the contract were cancelled, ti asrviee would
be put up for ooinnetitiou, in which Galway, as Well, as 4,1 Y
other ports of Ireland might take part. Cognpunications
on the subject were previously made from Liverpool, from
Limerick, and from Canada, and promises given by the
Treasury that every project should be duly considered; but in
the end this undertaking was broken with all the parties, and the
matter settl d behind their backs by the conclusion of the agree.
pent with the Galway company. The House was now called
vpot to record a serious vote. If they established the vote that
every bargain, ho'wever bad and improvident, or however
questionable the conclust of its o.iginal contractors, must be
held good, provided the affairs were handed over to some third
piirl es, the Howe wovld be preclyded from interfering in
many important cases involving largeontlayF of irublic money.
He di l not wish to decide the question on monetary considera-
pay even a larger sum than the'snb-
ocalel:r the character
to
of VaninMettt, and put an end to
a ndoubtful, and perhaps discreditable, tranaaefioa.
sub-
sidy
tr, an
A
. DISRAELI said that the contract had been coagladed by
the late Government, entirely from their persuasion that it
would benefit the country, and especially Ireland. The
arrangement was not effected hurriedly or informally, but
that the contract was either
after mature 'cansideration, and in the most deliberate manner.
imep',7rrrindirtenatial,:dbelleca4vinfteg,;.7
arrangement. Mr.
Mr. that
it
tle unwisewda
se nieerad
Disraeli then proceeded to justify the ti.ode in which the
negotiations were conducted, and the contract corepi.ded by
the Treasury, and repudiated the allegation that any corrupt
notion had prompted the government in effecting the agree=
ment. There was, ho added a great ,jealousy among certain
classes in certain towns' of England. aiairalt any encourage-

anent to Irish enterprise. But when Soutinonpton and Liver-
pool obtained such liberal su'•.sidies it was surely nnwortla of

Englishmen to begrudge some share in the advantage to dis,

tant Galway.
Mr. Ronal:ex answered the charge of corruption, which, he
observed, seemed to apply personally to himself or to Lord
Derby, one as having promoted and the other as having
sanction, 4, the contract. There was no notion of corruption
con either part, ano,leyen Mr. Lever, who was made a sort of
scapegoat in the affair, instef4 of deriving money from the en-
terprise, had risked a large cap,4l in itp guccess: The secret of
opposition lay ie the resentment of some parties in Liverpool,
'At° Injd been anxious to secure for themselves the acrytuitag4
enjoyed by the g alway Company. Upon its merits he main-
tained that the arrangement was calculated to be highly bene-

finial to the public.
Mr. J. C. EwAta declared that Liyexpo4 414 not wish to
deprive either Galway, Londonderry, Limerick, cr pul?lip, of

any postal contract.
Mr. HUBBARD said that the contract was questionable in its
initiation, and brought about by gross misrepresentation.
The House divided—For the vote, 145; against, 39;
majority, 106.

The vote of tio,ooo was then agreed to.
The House then proceeded to discuss the next vote, hut, on
the motion Oian hon. member, wqs counted out at ten minutes

to three.