The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-29 00:00:00

PACKET SERVICE-SUPPLY.

Mr. WALPOLB rose on report of supply to call the at-
tention of the house to the unusual and inconvenient form
ofproceeding, and to move the rejection of all the words after
" 1864." The right hon. gentleman contended that the
course adopted was opposed to the bye laws of the house,
that a persistence in it would cause great confusion and in-
convenience, would interfere with the relations between the
the house and the crown in regard to matters of supply,
and altogether alter the relations between that an the upper
house. According to the act passed in July 1860, contracts
ought to be laid on the table one month before they could be
agreed to ; but the new contract had not not been so laid.
(Opposition cheers.) He considered that the Government
ought to withdraw the vote taken on account of the packet
service the other evening;

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion, both on the ground of form and substance,
which the right hon. gentleman had set up against the vote,
The opposition of the right hon. gentleman, and the argu-
ments which he had advanced, savoured of political super.
stition. (Laughter.) It appeared to him (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) that the Government had adopted
a common sense view upon the matter. The proceeding of
the horse wag of a regular character, and quite within the
powers of the Committee of Supply. The precedents of
Parliament for more than 100 years were in favour of the
course adopted on the present occasion by the Government.
(Hear, hear.) If principle was not compromised, but, on
the contrary, was served, by a departure from usage, it
would amount to political superstition to maintain that,
under such circumstances, usage should be adhered to.
(Hear, hear.) But, again, his right hon. friend laid down
—in terms the breadth of which alarmed him—the doctrine
that no matter of policy could be considered in committee
of supply.. Now, from what storehouse of constitutional
lore had his right hon. friend drawn his authority for that
assertion ? He said that nothing but mere questions of
amount could be considered in committee of supply. But
how could they separate questions of amount from questions
of policy ? The doctrine of his right hon. friend was full of
exaggeration, and was calculated to leave the house in the
greatest difficulties upon future occasions. What he appre-
hended to be the spirit of the institution of the committee of
supply was this—it was intended to leave the hands of the
House of Commons, and the power of speech of the House
of Commons,as free as possible at the very first step of their
being called won M vote money. He knew of no autho-
rity living or written which had laid down, in an intel-
ligible.tt manner, what were the propositions which a com-
er e e
handof s_upply was precluded from entertaining. On the
this was certain, that an appeal was made to the
proper authority in committee of supply,and that he declared
there was no irregularity in the course adopted by the Go..
vernment. (" No," from Lord J. Manners.) The resolu-
tion was declared to be within the province of the committee
of supply, and it had not since been challenged by an P
2eal to the chair. The adoption of the resolution did ano;
qualify the assertion, that what had been done in this in-
stance on behalf of the Crown could be adopted by an in-
dependent member. That was a question for debate,and the
distinction had been overlooked by the right hon. gentle-
man. Convenience, utility, and public expediency were
the tests by which to decide the question. He referred to
the proceedings of the house in Jan. 1767, and to a resolu •
Lion of the house in 1667,in support of the correctness of the
proceeding adopted by the Government, and said that the
resolution last passed by the house was a proposal by the
Crown to the House of Commons, that a particular person,
with rekrence to a particular contract, should be excluded
from the performance of the particular service under it. The
course proposed by that resolution was not matter foreign
to the business of supply, and no other course was open to
the Government to take. The right hon. gentleman said
he would have submitted to the house whether the contract
should have been continued or not, and if not, then to have
submitted to the House the substituted contract, and have
asked Parliament for the money. That would have
an objectionable course, for, by inserting the name of the
person
have
.discharged the duty of the executive Government in
pointing out by whom that service was to be performed.
What the Government had done, and what the house had
confirmed,
was to point out the person by whom a certain
service was not to
be Performed, from his having proved
himself unworthy in ee
he had obtained the contragetl.enTee of the manner in which
when The state of the public con-
tracts was most dangerous
hen present Government
came into power to the purity of parliamentary
and the proposed an investigation. into the
on ;sad the
government,
subject. The
eel
first examined into was M r. Churchward's tract
select committee decided, by a majority of
that a resolution should be adopted declaringevthene to
four,
contract
to be on Mr. Churchward's part corrupt. That placed the
Government in a position of some difficulty, but the
rescued from it by the motion of the late Captain Leicester
Vernon, an independent Opposition member, which in clear
terms challenged the judgment of that committee by calling
on the house to reverse and reject that decision. The Govern-
ment considered the decision of the committee to be a tight
one, and gave it their support. Tr, have brought for ward a
distinct motion for annulling the contract would have been a
most uncalled-for course on tared arterefore of the
they opposed
Government
against the late Government, th
182 to 117.
the motion, which was lost by a majority of
That was an indication of the feeling of the house which the
Government asked for, and it cast upon them the obligation
of doing what they had done, and, if they had done it, they
would have broken the pledge given by a Minister speaking
in his place in the house. The right hon, gentleman said
Mr. Churchward's contract was not before the house, and
had not been considered by hon. members; but he reminded
them that it was before the house three years ago, and was
then duly investigated and voted upon. The right lion.
gentleman also said they ought to have adopted an affirma-.
tive vote ; but the consequence of that would have been that
they would in all probability have had two contracts instead
of one for the same service. Under the circumstances he
,contended that the Government had taken the best course
Sor arri'iag at a definite mode of deciding the question. The

Government had simply made themselves the faithful and
humble guardians and expositors of the declared sense, first
of the select committee and then the vote of that diouse in
1860, and they were now asked to repudiate not only those i
two decisions, but also the decision of the whole House n
committee come to a short time since. If the house wished
to retain its power over those contracts it was their duty to
set their face against all corrupt contracts. There was
nothing more dangeLous than public contracts, and it was
essential that they should be well watched, and he called
upon the house to protect the rights and powers of the
House of Commons.
Lord J. MANNERS said he would answer the question
of the right hon, gentleman by stating that the object of
the amendment was to have justice done between party
and party. The house would observe that his right hon.
friend had challenged the Government to bring forward
a precedent for the course theyjwere now pursuing; and
although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read at
length the proceedings which had taken place in 1767, he
had wholly failed to make out any justification for the un-
precedented course they were pursuing. The Chancellor oe
the Exchequer was equally at fault with regard to the deci-
sion of the chairman of committees the other evening. The
decision which the chairman of supplieshad given was, that
the course pursued by the Government was in accordance
with the forms of the house, but he declined to give any de-
cision with regard to the form of the resolution. Then with
regard to the committee, he (Lord J. Manners), as one of the
committee, could state that even the majority had not gone
to anything like the length of the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was the origin of that
famous committee ? A general election had just taken place;
certain seats had been wrested from right hon. gentlemen
opposite. No explanations were thought too vile or too base
to account for the change in public opinion. Lord Derby
had been accused of purchasing the whole of Ireland by
the Galway contract. (Ministerial cheers.) The hon. mem-
ber for Huntingdon had been accused of purchasing all the
Publicans of the country, and of Berwick-upon-Tweed in
particular. (Laughter.) The noble lord then read extracts
from the evidence of Mr. Churchward, Capt. Carnegie, and
Mr. Murray, in whose room jilt the Admiralty the alleged
corrupt conversation had taken place; and contended that
the evidence of Mr. Churchward and Mr, Murray was alto-
gether contradictory of the version of the conversation
given by Capt. Carnegie. But, making the moat of the
case, it only amounted to this, that Mr. Churchward. hav-
ing sent in his tender six weeks before the conversation
took place, and having promised his support to Captain
Carnegie, he naturally expressed some anxiety for the
renewal of his contract. (Ironical cheers.) But were
voters to indulge in no expectations for the future, and
were election committees to inquire into the hopes and
fears not only of candidates but voters? If this was
to be the rule, committees of that house would have
plenty of work chalked out for thsm in future. He con-
tended that it was not just to punish Mr. Churchward for
having expressed an expectation about the renewal of his
contract, and that the Government did not eonsult the hon-
our and dignity of the house in the course which they now
proposed. (Opposition cheers.) The noble lord then quoted
the language of the Attorney-General of three years ago,
and contended that the proceedings of the Government were
not only calculated to endanger the honour and dignity but
also the independence of the house. He therefore entreated
the house not to become the accomplices of the Government
in an act of pitiful political revenge, originating in the most
malignant ingenuity, and intended to effect a most gross
injustice. (Oh, and cheers.)
Mr. LINDSAY said it appeared to him there had been
some doubt upon the minds of the committee, and he thought
that wherever there was a doubt in such matters it should
be given in favour of the contractor, who was the weaker
party. He should therefore vote for Mr. Churchward.
Lord R. CECIL said he would admit all that the presen

Government had imputed to Mr. Churchward, but ;till he
contended it was the duty of every Government to carry out
the contracts made by its predecessors to the best of its abi-
lity. Mr. Churchward had, upon the faith of his contract,
laid out about £lB,OOO upon the understanding that the con-
sent of Parliament should be asked to the arrangement.
Instead of that the Government wen now begging the house
not to give their assent. In private life such a course would
be considered moat dishonourable, and therefore he called
upon the house not to sanction it. If Mr. Churchward had
been guilty of any crime, let him be indicted ; if he had
committed a breach of privilege, let him be brought to the
bar of the house; but by all means let them avoid a course
which, merely to carry out a feeling of political revenge,
would throw a doubt upon all future contracts made by the
British Government.
Sir FITZROY KELLY, who rose amidst loud cries of
" Divide," and was for some minutes quite inaudible, was
understood to say he should have liked to have had the
opinion of the Speaker upon the point whether the resolu-
tion in the form reported to the house was in fact within
the constitution usage of that house. (Divide, and Bar.)
He knew of no case of the kind in the whole history of Eng-
land. (Divide.) Mr. Churchward had performed his con-
tract in every way to the satisfaction of the Government
and the country, and yet the house was asked to inflict upon
him a fine of £30,000 or £40,000.
The house then divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority

The result was received with loud cheers on the Minis-
terial benches.
RAILWAY PASSENGERS' DUTY.—THE TAX ON
EXCURSION TRAINS.

The House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
following resolution with reference to the duty on railway
passengers : " That the exemption from duty granted by
the 9th section of the Act passed in the 7th and Bth
years of her Majesty's reign, chapter 85, in respect of
the conveyance of passengers by cheap trains, shall not
extend to any railway train which shall not be a
train running on at least six days of the week, or else
a train running to or from a market-•town on a mar-
ket day, and approved of by the Lords of the Com-
mittee of Privy Council for Trade and Plantations as
a cheap train for the conveyance of passengers to or from
market." The object of the resolution was, not to increase
the tax on the ordinary and regular passenger traffic, but
only to apply the tax to what was popularly known as ex-
cursion trains, and to place them in that respect on the same
footing as other trains.
Mr. H. S. THOMPSON dissented from the resolution,
which was both unjust and unwise towards the railway in-
terest. It was unjust to impose additional taxation at the
present time on railway companies, who had laid out an
immense amount of capital that had been more beneficial
to the country generally than to capitalists in particular,
and to treat them differently from other great financial
undertakings, both with regard to imperial and local
taxation. He complained that railway companies had to
pay income tax up to the last farthing that they received,
which was not the case with other commercial specula-

tions. The passenger tax was imposed in 1832 and mo-
dified in 1842, at a time when railways were considered
to be mines lof !wealth to their fortunate proprietors,
and when it appeared bat fair and reasonable that the State
should have a share of those large dividends which were
supposed to be bona fide paid. A few years had dispelled
those notions, and it was unjust to increase their taxation.
Railways suffered greatly from the inapplicability of the
present law relative to local rating. It was a usual thing
for overseers to rate railway property up to the full amount
of its income, and leave the company to fight the question
in a court of law. The law of compensation for accidents
was a subject for reasonable ground of complaint. The ex-
cursion traffic was of great benefit to the lower classes, the
rate at which they were carried enabling them to travel
when they could not afford t o do so even by ld. a mile trains.
They were the poor man's trains, and ought to be en-
couraged by the Government. Passengers were carried
by them at the rate of between a farthing and a halfpenny
per mile, and they were to be taxed whilst the penny a mile
trains were to be exempt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
spoke on a former occasion of the increase of 65 millions
since 1862. That he (Mr. Thompson) considered was to
be
attributed to the facilities given by railways to the develop-
ment of agriculture and the extension of manufactures an
trade. They had a remarkable instance of excursion traffic
the other day, when the Brighton Railway Company con-
veyed an army of 24,000 men to the volunteer review at
Brighton on Easter Monday; placed them there within
four hours, left them there long enough to fight a great
battle, and removed them afterwards without any accident.
That was a great feat, but it should not be expected that
railway companies could perform such feats of locomotion
except by constant practice. Attention had been directed
to the lamentable accidents arising from excursion trains,
but he contended that the safety of the public was not one-
hundredth part so much imperilled by excursion trains
as by the poverty of railway companies. He did not mean
the Exchequer would consider the
to divide the committee, but he trusted the Chancellor
o
arguments
ad-
vanced in favour of the railway companies, both with re-
gard to the present position and future adjustment of
taxation.

y
be hS iarl fFo.f tehßo s°e SwShLo Er
eYc e i vweids h eadd vant o t silage aor
trips—the working population of this country. He remem-
beredcheap
a time when it was an unknown thing for men to be
absent from their work to go upon expeditions of this kind.
But of late years it had become a general rule for artisans
to ask permission to go to the seaside with their wives and
families for a certain number of days in the year, which
they could not do but for those cheap trips. He understood
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to remove those
cheap trips by withdrawing the exemption which it was
not intended to withdraw from the Parliamentary trains,
those which ran six days in the week. He could not see
why exemption should be allowed to the penny train, and
be withdrawn from those that ran for a farthing or a half-
penny 2 He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
take time to consider the matter. If machinery and in_
ventions only went to increase wealth, it should diminish
in their estimation the value of the mechanical progress of
eactil tidhowith
the ager
. l:tin()whichc tich ey l i
saidv e
bd
0.
w(
as} e ar,
not hate a r.)
but
nn
was note
th
manufacturing industry of the country,.
vea rng nt 2 tgh
moree. exer
from
en
narrowm e
and degrading than the clutching of a few h pence
oi nf
stehnesipbeloeptloe ;thane grd
heaet cLoefl dfictooncefetil)

the working classes, when seeking to enlarge their expe-

rience.

Mr, AYRTON defended the proposition of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and contended that the proposi-
tion before the house only brought the matter of taxation
back to where it had stood originally. The reason why the
exemption had been granted for the Parliamentary trains
was, that the railway companies complained of them as a
grievance, and they said to the Government, "If you com-
pel us to run those trains you must at least give us some
countervailing advantage in the shape of exemption." He
did not mean to say but that it might be a good thing to
abolish taxation upon locomotion altogether, but when they
did not give exemption to cheap omnibuses and to horse
traffic, he did not see how it could be claimed for railway
companies.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
that there were many important questions opened up by the
hon. member for Whitby, but he submitted that they did
not bear upon the resolution before the committee, the ob-
ject of which was simply the adjustment of taxation. He
had himself taken a great interest in the reduction of the
expenses of railway companies, and he had voted for a
motion which would have the effect of saving them five
times as much as the amount involved in the present pro-
position ; and that was that, instead of having to prove their
case twice and fee counsel twice, they should have their case
at once determined by a joint committee of both Houses of
Parliament. But it did not appear that the railway com-
panies themselves were so desirous of reducing their ex-
penses. (Hear, hear.) He admitted the great advantage
to working men of having the means of cheap locomotion ;
but he thought the advantage arose rather from having
cheap ordinary trains connected with business than ex-
cursion trains for the purpose of pleasure. When they
did not grant exemption to horse traffic employed for
pleasure, how could they, with any show of justice,
allow it to railway companies ? And he did not think it
would be wise to give a factitious encouragement to rail-
way companies for the irregular portion of their traffic.
Upon the whole he considered that excursion trains were
not s lely taken advantage of by the working classes, but
were largely used by the middle classes, and, therefore, as
they were the cause of considerable interference with the
ordinary traffic of railway companies, he thought they
ought not to be made the subject of special and factitious
exception from taxation.
Mr. WALPOLE said the fact was too often lost sight of
that there was a vast difference between railway traffic and
every other kind of public conveyance, because railway
companies made their own roads, and were assessed to the
poor upon their whole property, whereas stage carriage
proprietors were only assessed upon their stables and coach
houses.
Mr. WHALLEY said that circumstance was fully taken
into consideration by the capitalists who laid out their
money upon railways, and he was of opinion that if rail-
way companies were to reduce the whole of their fares 50
per cent, they would find their regular profits very much
larger than at present. (Hear.) The tax proposed was a
direct tax, and did not at all interfere with the advantages
derived by excursionists, and therefore he should vote for
the resolution.
The resolution was then agreed to and the house resumed.
LAND DRAINAGE (PROVISIONAL ORDERS)
BILL.
Upon the motion to read this bill a third time,
Mr. PEASE moved that the order be discharged, and the
bill recommitted to a select committee, to be appointed by
the committee of selection in the same manner as in the
case of a private bill. The bill was, in fact, a private bill,
affecting only certain localities in the county of Durham,
and by introducing it as a public measure, its promoters had
avoided the ordinary obligation of giving notice to the land-
owners whose property was affected by it.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said the bill was simply in accord-
ance with the Lands' Drainage Aet of 1861, and though
the hon. gentleman's objections might apply to the gene-
ral policy of that act, they could hardly be taken as having
any weight against the present measure.
Mr. BRUCE admitted that the Drainage Act did not
afford complete protection to individuals whose property lay
beyond the drainage district. He quite agreed with the
hon. member for Northumberland, that the danger of indi-
vidual injury was not altogether chimerical ; and he should
therefore, on the part of the Government, agree to the re-
committal of the bill, though not in the full terms of the
motion.

Lord H. VANE approved of the determination of the
Government, and was of opinion that sufficient cause for
inquiry had been made out.
Sir. H. CAIRNS suggested that the better course would
be to recommit the bill in the House, and to reinsert a clause
that its provisions should not affect any person out of the
drainage district.
Mr. AYRTON supported the motion for reference, and
contended that there was nothing unusual in the course.
After some observations from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
Mr. ROEBUCK said the common-sense way of proceed-
ing would be to refer the bill to a select committee, as it
was evident the house knew nothing about the bill.
Sir W. HE ATHCOTE opposed the proposal to refer the
bill to a select committee.
Mr. PEASE then withdrew his amendment, expressing
his willingness to accept the proposal of the Under Secre-
tary for the Home Department (Mr. Bruce) that certain
clauses of the bill should be reconsidered in committee.
Sir S. NORTHCO moved, as an amendment, that
the bill generally should be recommitted.
The house divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority in favour of reconsidering certain
clauses of the bill in committee., —3B
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. BAGWELL expressed a conviction that the bill
would be inoperative, and recommended that it should be
withdrawn, and a new one introduced, devolving all works
connected with the arterial drainage of Ireland upon the
Board of Works.

Mr. F. PEEL said it was not considered desirable that
the Board of Works in Ireland should any longer under.
take extensive drainage works.
The house then went into committee, and the several
clauses were agreed to.

RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS (IRELAND).
The adjourned debate on Mr, Dillwyn's motion relative
to religious endowments (Ireland), was, after a short dis-
cussion on the day to which it should be adjourned, further
adjourned to Friday, June 5.
DISTRICT PAROCHIAL CHURCHES (IRELAND)