The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-05 00:00:00

thought it highly objectionable to prevent tramways com-
peting with railways. This proviso distinctly prohibited
such being done, and he could not therefore suffer it to
pass without entering his protest against it.
Mr. CARDWELL said the proviso was to be found in
the bill passed last year, and he should like to know what
was intended to be done on the present occasion.
Mr. CARDWELL said it was merely to remedy 'a tech-
nical defect that had been started by the railway com-
panies.
Mr. SCULLY said the proviso was slipped in last year
in a very objectionable way. It, was openly withdrawn in
the house, when the subject was under discussion, and it
was slipped in again when the bill was passing through its
final stage.
Mr, BRADY objected to the proviso, and expressed hie
surprise that the former act contained a somewhat similar
enactment.

Sir M. PETO thought it perfectly futile and ridiculous
to imagine for a moment that tramways between two towns,
connected by railway, could successfully enter into compe-
tition with locomotive power.
After a short discussion, in which Mr. Beamish, Mr.
Butt, and other hon. members took part, the proviso was
agreed to, and the bill was ordered to be reported.
THE GALWAY CONTRACT.
On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Col. FRENCH took the opportunity of denying the
statement which had been made on the eve of the division
on the the budget that the Irish members had asked the
noble lord the First Lord of the Treasury to receive a de-
putation of them in order to intimidate the Government.
The nob'e lord bad stated that Father Daly told
him that he had no authority to make such a request, but
he seemed to have an impression that that gentleman had
some authority, and Lord John Russell had stated as much,
and that circumstances had influenced many gentlemen in
opposition, and caused more than 16 members to abstain
from voting against the Government. He emphatically
denied that the Irish members had sought in any way to
indirectly influence the noble lord at the head of the
Government.

Lord PALMERSTON said that the statement of the
gallant member was unnecessary, after a similar disclaimer
had been made by the hon. member for Waterford last even .
ing. There could be no doubt that Mr. Daly had no autho-
rity to make any such offer.
Lord NAAS said he felt great pleasure that this subject
was at an end. (Hear.) He, however, regretted that the
noble earl had not asked Mr. Daly whether he had any
authority to make the proposal. He would not
at that moment enter into the subject of the Galway con-
tract, because he felt certain that that subject must be
brought under discussion at the earliest possible opportu-
nity.
Cisl. DUNNE denied the statements that had appeared
in some of the daily journals, that Irish members generally
were influenced in their conduct by corruption. He begged
to say that they were no more influenced by those motives
than any other members of the house. He could not help
saying, with reference to the Galway contract, that if the
Government intended to open that contract to competition
it would never be completed. He thought that the parties
under the Galway contract had been very unjustly dealt
with. He did not complain of the Postmaster-General
withdrawing the contracts but what he did com-
plain of was the conduct of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer who, for sixteen months, so acted with
with respect to the subsidy in a manner that rendered a
breach of conduct inevitable.

Mr. GREGORY denied emphatically the statement
that the Irish members had determined to tamper with the
Prime Minister, and to make terms for their support on a
recent division. He believed that the indignatton was
assimilated by themselves for party purposes, and it was
to be regretted that the strategem had succeeded. He had
voted against the Government on national grounds, and
his vote was intended as a vote of want of confidence.
Sir G. LEWIS said he should not have risen had it not
been for the remarks of the hon. member to the, as he
called it, simulated indignation of his noble friend the Sec-
retary for Foreign Affairs. His noble friend's remarks
were dictated by an impression that prevailed, from a state-
ment that had appeared in the early part of the day, that
Government had entered into a compact relative to the
Galway contract. His noble friend's indignant denial
was not only not simulated, but indispensable to
the vindication of the personal honour of the members of
the Government.

After a few observations from Mr. OTONOUGHUE
the subject dropped.
CAPTAINS ON THE RESERVED LIST.
On the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair for the
purpose of going into committee of supply on the navy
estimates,
Mr. B. COCHRANE rose and moved the following re-
solution :—" That the captains of the royal navy, who were
placed on a reserved as distinguished from a retired
list, on account of their having served long and well,
in accordance with tho orders in council, of the 25th
day of June, 1851, and the 30th day of January, 1856,
have great reason to complain that the arrangement entered
into with the Board of Admiralty has not been fairly car-
ried out, and that the injustice with which these officers
have been treated is most prejudicial to the public service.
Admiral WALCOTT seconded the resolution. He
thought the reserved captains had full cause to complain
of the injustice that had been done them, and he trusted
that members of the House of Commons would not allow
old and meritorious officers to be so treated.

Lord C. PAGET said he readily admitted the grievances
under which the officers laboured. The reserved list was
intended for commanders who had no prospects of active
employment, and it was intended to be understood that
officers accepting the reserve pay were not to rise in rank
simultaneously with those officers on the active list.
After a few words from Major EDWARDS, the house
divided, when there appeared—
For the resolution
Against it
Majority
The house then went into committee of supply.
On the motion that £469,835 be granted for new works,
improvements, and repairs in yards,
Mr. HENLEY objected to the vote, because it had been
said it would lead to the outlay of £1,000,000 of money.
Lord C. PAGET tose to make certain explanations, but
the time for suspending debate having arrived, the vote
was not proceeded with.
Some unopposed returns having been ordered, the house
adjourned at six o'clock.