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

THE ROBING-ROOM.

Lord REDESDALE gave notice that on Monday week
he should move for a select committee to ascertain when
the Robing-room would be ready for the occupation of their
lordships.
EXPERIMENTS WITH THE ARMSTRONG GUN.

The Earl of HARDWICKE, seeing the noble duke the
First Lord of the Admiralty in his plac, wished to call
attention to the statement made by him some evenings
ago, viz., that shot from the Armstrong guns had
penetrated eight inches of iron. Now it was
very important to know what were the parti-
culars of those plates. He was told that the plates
were composed of iron welded together, and set on end
ways, in which case it was a very unfair trial, as the
welding could never be perfect. He was also told that the
41 inch plate of wrought iron had never been (penetrated.
It was very important that the truth should be known, in
order that the impression might not go forth that English
manufacturers could not make good iron plates.
The Duke of SOMERSET was perfectly aware of the
great differences in iron plates. The plates in question
were certainly composed of iron bars, but they were not
welded. They were dovetailed together, and fastened in
the strongest manner. He believed that the same results
would have followed had the plates been prepared in other
ways. With respect to the trials that had been made, and
would be made, the utmost care would be observed, and
the services of the most scientific persons had been se-
cured.

Postmaster-General of the postal contract with the Royal
Atlantic Steam Navigation Company. He said it was not
his intention to make any allusion to those personal expla-
nations which had hitherto attended the discussions on this
subject. He would merely remark that it was the custom
in private life, when a gentleman had the misfortune to hurt
the feelings of another, either from any incorrect informa-
tion, or from any inadvertency, to take the earliest oppor-
tunity after he had found out his mistake to explain how
the error arose, and to express his regret that it should have
occurred, and he would venture to say that in 99 cases out
of 100, that explanation was accepted in the same frank and
friendly spirit in which it was made. He was bound to say
that the noble lord at the head of the Government had
evinced that frank and fair spirit which always character-
ised his dealings with that house. As soon as he found
that the Irish members had not made a threat nor solicited
an interview, he stated to the house that he was perfectly
satisfied with that explanation ; and he (Mr. Gregory) only
wished that on that occasion the noble viscount had been
authorised to make a similar statement on the part of the
noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In that case
the noble lord (Lord John Russell) would have had the
advantage of making an interesting harangue, and if at the
same time the noble lord had stated that he was mistaken
in the insinuations that he threw out, he (Mr. Gregory)
could only say that, as far as he was concerned, the noble
lord would not have heard more of it. He would make one
other remark, and it was this, that the house ought to bear
in mind that insinuations against members of the house
not only attached to those members but to the whole house,
both in the eyes of this country and in the eyes of foreign
nations. lie was given to understand that the commit-
tee was to be conceded, but until they had some informa-
tion from some authorised source on the Treasury bench,
he trusted that hon. members who were disposed to sup-
port his motion would not leave the house. The terms of
his motion were for a committee to inquire into the cir-
cumstances which had attended the abolition of the Galway
contract on the part of the Postmaster-General, and the
Government having adopted what he might call the solids,
rity of the responsibility of the Postmaster-General, the
house would naturally consider that this was a committee
that was going to inquire into the acts of the Cabinet ; and
as he could not help recollecting that on a former occasion
when a committee of that house had been moved to inquire
into the conduct of the Crimean war, the appointment of
that committee was resisted on the ground that it was to
inquire into the acts of a Cabinet, the most influential mem-
bers of which had acceded, he should hope that those hon.
rn.rnbers who were disposed to support his motion would
wait tut tney nau receives a What. ue naa
stated. It had always been a stereotyped accusation against
the people of Ireland, that instead of devoting their energies
to the practical improvement of their country, they had
ever been disposed to be led away by different projects of
agitators, the realisation of which was impossible. In 1850,
however, a project was set on foot which it was fondly
hoped would be the precursor of many others, a project,
namely, for the establishment of a line of transatlantic
steamers in connection with an Irish port. In every part of
Ireland the scheme was eagerly taken up. Small farmers,
small shopkeepers, and persons who had retired from busi-
ness, all freely contributed towards the funds required ;
for, as Mr. Laing observed, on the 9th of August last, 1,720
Irishmen had been induced to subscribetheir money; believ-
ing that the project would be for the interest of their coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) When the subsidy was granted by Lord
Derby's Government, he believed that at no time had there
ever been a more friendly feeling towards England since
the memorable tour of Lord Normanby. Irishmen at last
thought that they had got something more than words.
They thought it was a fulfilment of what had been pro-
mised them by King William IV. in answer to the address
of both houses of Parliament that had been moved as an
amendment to the motion of Mr. O'Connell for the repeal
of the union. A similar feeling prevailed even in this
country, for addresses were sent up to the Treasury in
favour of the scheme from chambers of commerce in some
of the largest and wealthiest towns, and also from some of
the most eminent cammercial firms in England, There
were, however, two quarters in which great objection was
felt to it; and they were Liverpool and Scotland. In 1851 a
similar uneasiness had been felt in Liverpool because it was
proposed that there should be a postal communication be-
tween Ireland and America ; but the inhabitants were, at
that time, a good deal reassured by the report of that year
and by a speech of Lord Granville in the same summer, in
which the noble lord laid down the theory that communica-
tion with America ought to proceed from Liverpool alone.
He was bound to say that that theory had been well en-
forced by the Liverpool press ; for it said that Ireland really
ought not to be led away by any such visionary ideas ; but
that it ought to content itself with planting potatoes and
raising agricultural produce. When in 1858, however, the
Galway Company was fairly started—when its vessels were
seen to carry as many passengers as they could possibly
accommodate—when the crimps and lodging-house keepers
of Liverpool perceived that the unfortunate emigrants
were escaping from their grasp—(cheers)—when they found
that more goods came not only from Belfast but from other
ports in Ireland than the vessels could carry, the Liverpool
editors began to leave off their satirical criticisms on the
names of the ships, the incorrect descriptions of their ton-
nage, and the discrepancies which were exhibited by their
time bills, and a my rose that it was atrocious in any Go-
vernment• to support such a scheme. In Scotland a similar
cry was raised, and it was led by the hon. gentlemen the
members for Greenock and Montrose. A committeee of in-
quiry was instituted, and certain proceedings certainly came
out; but though it might have inculpated individuals, that
inquiry completely cleared the late Government of the
charges which had been brought against it of political job-
bery. It was said that they had entered into the contract
for the sole purpose of influencing the Irish elections ;
but that charge had been so completely refuted
by his noble friend (Lord Naas), who had shown that the
contract was in point of fact completed before the prospect
of a general election became imminent, that he (the hon.
gentleman) need not say another word on the subject.
(Hear, hear.) He believed that Lord Derby's Government
were really influenced by considerations which did them the
greatest credit. Instead of governing Ireland by a mere
system of conciliating this man, and catching that, and put-
ting him in office—(cheers)---Lori Derby inaugurated a
general policy—a policy of seeking to benefit, not individuals,
but the whole country. (Hear, hear.) The people of Ire-
land felt that while they contributed largely to the imperial
Exchequer, they reaped no benefit from grants which were
lavished on England. Thus, while £BOO,OOO was laid out on
harbours of refuge in England, and while £900,000 was
sanctioned for postal contracts for English ports, no money
was thus expended on Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The best wit-
ness in her favour was Mr. Laing himself, who said that so
long as Ireland contributed a third of the postage, and pos-
sessed the advantage of nearness and the consequent saving
of time which her position gave her, she must be consi-
dered as entitled to the service. (Hear, hear.) In the
report of Lord Granville several points were strongly in-
sisted upon as establishing the inexpediency of making
Ireland a port of departure, which had been disproved by
the committee of inquiry. For example, Lord Granville's
report said the saving of time would be inconsiderable--
only 10 hours in 11 days—whereas it was shown that there
would be a gain of 24 hours to passengers, and while the
gain to letters would be equal to seven or eight days on
the double voyage, the saving on telegraphic despatches
would be one. half. Then it was said that merchandise
would not go ; but more merchandise had been offered by
Belfast alone than the ships would carry. Then it was said
that the passengers would find the frequent transference
objectionable ; but it was proved that the Galway Company
had carried more passengers in 12 voyages than the Cunard
had carried in 50. (Hear, hear.) From June, 1859, to May,
1861, it had conveyed not less than 13,250 passengers out,
and 3,955 home. (Cheers.) These persons had not only
escaped the'robbery and spoliation which they would have
suffered in Liverpool, but the Irish girls amongst them had
escaped the debauchery and contamination to which they
would have been subjected in the ordinary emigrant ships,
and which stocked the streets of New York with the vic-
tims who were thus seduced and then abandoned. This,
therefore, was no mere squabble between a company and
the Post-office. It was a national question, in which the
sympathies of every Irishman were enlisted. They had been
charged with giving the question a political complexion,
but that complexion had been forced upon it. The present
Governntent, which he (Mr. Gregory) usually supported,
had, he regretted to say, from the date of its accession to
power, showed the strongest animus against it. (Hear.)
He would not refer to its dealings with the Post-office au-
thorities—he would refer rather to the report of Lord Gran-
ville, and to the speech of Mr. Wilson, on the vote of want
of confidence, in support of his. assertion. And now let
the house pay attention to the dates. On the 22d of Octo-
ber, 1858, a contract was entered into between the colonial
Government of Newfoundland and the Atlantic Company,
for a monthly service between Galway and St. John's, and
hence to the United States. The subsidy was to be £13,000,
of which £8,500 was to be paid by Newfoundland, and
£4,500 by the imperial government. On the 21st of April,
1859, another contract was entered into between her Ma-
jesty's Government and the company for a packet service
between Galway and New York, with a telegraphic service
to St. John's. The service was to be fortnightly, and for
£1,500 each voyage, or £3,000 for the double voyage out and
home. The ships were to be of not less than 2,000 tons bur-
den, and of 420 horse power. Four ships were contracted for
at a price, in round numbers, amounting to about £400,000.
Plans, lines, and specifications were submitted to the Ad-
miralty and approved. The company, feeling that they had
undertaken a service of a very arduous character, and that
they had a fleet of first-class steamers to provide, naturally
required sufficient time. Accordingly they demanded and
obtained 14 months; and the contract was therefore to
commence in June, 1860. After this contract was signed
circumstances occurred which considerably complicated the
affairs of the company. In the first' place parliament was
dissolved; and shortly afterwards a new ministry came in;
soon after which a system of attack, as he might fairly call
it, was commenced againstthe company. (Hear.) Questiont
were continually put; little matters were perpetually urged .
and gentle hints were conveyed to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and the Treasury, the object of which was un-
mistakable, (Hear, hear.) A committee was oppointed in
July to inquire into postal contracts. In the following
session it was re-appointed, and it did not report on the
Galway contract till the 22d of May, 1860. The committee
said that it would be open to parliament not to Tote the

. _
money for carrying out the contract, but that they were not
prepared to recommend the house to take such a course.
Everybody who knew all the circumstances that had oc-
curred, however, was perfectly certain that the vote for the
Galway Company was trembling in the balance. (Hear.)
The company did not know what course the house would
take. All would depend upon the course adopted by the
Government ; and it was understood that the animus of the
Government was hostile to the contract. On June 22 the
doubts which the company entertained were considerably
strengthened by a letter which was addressed to them by
the Treasury, and in which there occurred the following
passage :—" Under these circumstances it is impossible for
their lordships to foretell what may be the decision of par-
liament, or until the final report of the committee is made,
what course the Government may think it their duty to
adopt." It was not, in short, till the 9th of August—in
other words, till after the lapse of 16 months from the time
the contract was agreed upon—that it was approved by the
House of Commons. (Hear.) And now what was the posi-
tion of the company at this crisis? 'What would be the posi-
tion of any company in the world with an undertaking on its
hands of such magnitude, and with contracts pending to the
amount of nearly half a million of money, if all its hopes
were thus left in suspense for sixteen months ? (Hear.)
What power would it have o% er its shareholders or over its
contractors ? (Hear, hear.) If lathes had been committed
the fault was owing to the position in which the company
had been placed by the House of Commons, and the house
ought, therefore, to take a liberal view of the case. and give
the company the benefit of every doubt. (Cheers.)
Evety accusation that could be raked up against the com-
pany was brought forward, and he was bound to say some
very unfortunate transactions were brought to light, but
which involved none of the shareholders or of the present
directors. In June, 1860, although the contract bad not
been sanctioned, the company determined to put their
ships afloat. They were afraid that, if they did not, oppor-
tunities would be taken by their opponents to make
charges, by means of which an unfavourable impression
would be produced on the committee, and induce them to make
a report unfavourable to the company. They accordingly
commenced service two months before the contract was
actually granted, at a time when they were recommended
by the Treasury to do so. That fact was not in writing, but
he thought it could be sufficiently proved before a committee
of the house—(hear, hear)—and that, even although the
Treasury had then no power to pay them money. He
would now refer to another branch of the transaction—the
Newfoundland contract. He was under some difficulty in
considering this particular matter, because he found that
y etitm day a reply had Loan carat l,y th. Postmaster-General
to the statement of the directors, in which they had alleged
as a grievance with regard to this Newfoundland
contract, that the Postmaster-General had forced
the company to give up their colonial subsidy whilst
they kept them to the duty of carrying the mails to St.
John's. Now, the house would bear in mind there was
a letter published by Mr. Brady on this subject. But in
spite of Mr. Brady, and in spite of every written document
which was published on this subject, the carrying of the
mail to St. John's was forced on the company. This pistol
—or rather double-barrelled pistol—was held to the head of
the company because the Postmaster-General forced them
to carry the mails to St. John's after the withdrawal of the
colonial subsidy. The Postmaster-General met them at this
point, and said, no such thing—the contract for carrying
the mails, which was only for one year, had terminated.
To this statement he (Mr. Gregory) had only to say that it
was incorrect. The contract was made in the first instance
to carry the mails for one year; but it was continued for
five years, if the colonial legislature consented ; and the
local legislature of Newfoundland did consent. (Hear.)
This was a most important point, because it was this New-
foundland service which impoverished the company, and
laid the foundation for its final breaking up. Into this
subject he would not go further, but would leave it to the
decision of the committee. He would merely add that it
was alleged that the company had been subjected to pains
and penalties merely because they had strictly carried out
what the Postmaster-General considered to be the letter
of the agreement, and that being under a threat all the
time of having their contract broken up, the company were
forced to accept this condition. In October, 1860, the
company applied to the Postmaster-General for a postpone-
ment. That was the first proposal on the part of the com-
pany. They proposed to postpone the carrying out the
contract till March, 1861, That proposal was accom-
panied by a request that the Prince Albert might
be accepted for temporary service until another vessel was
ready. That request was refused. On the 12th December,
1860, the company wrote, asking far further indulgence, and
that the time should be extended from March to June, 1861.
And here he must allude to the circumstance that the Post-
master-General in his letter said that on the 26th of March,
1861, the company had not a single vessel capable of per-
forming the service of the company. But on the 26th of
March the company possessed one of the finest vessels in the
world capable of carrying the mails—the Adriatic. (Hear,
hear.) The Adriatic had been already employed by
the Cundrd Company, and the directors applied to the
Postmaster-General to allow her to start without being in-
spected by one of the surveyors of the Admiralty. That
request was refused. Now, though no doubt it was per-
fectly right that vessels should be inspected, he thought the
Postmaster-General might have extended to the Adriatic
under the circumstances some liberty in the matter. But
all these points might now be thrown aside, because for
almost every one of these concessions the company had been
compelled to pay—to use a vulgar phrase—through the nose,
o the extent of £B,OOO. It had been generally supposed
that the company had received a very large sum of money for
doing nothing all this time. But he must assure the house
that the company had received no money whatever, except
far services actually rendered, to the amount of £14,000
odd. No doubt there had been irregularities ; no doubt also
concessions had been granted by the Postmaster-General.
But the company had beon fined over and over again, and
where the fines had been exacted it ought to be considered
that condonation had taken place. (Hear, hear.) On the
7th May the company, in consequence of not having a vessel
of their own, engaged the Parana, a vessel which in tonnage,
horse power, &c., fully answered the requirements of the
Admiralty. Her speed had been proved on former occa-
sions, for once she had made the passage to Boston
in one day and several hours less than the time
required, and she had returned in an even shorter
period. Therefore, the Parana was a vessel perfectly cal-
culated to fulfil the terms of the contract. Now, by the
terms of the contract of the 21st of April, 1859, the com-
pany were bound to keep seaworthy and efficient vessels ;
but they were to be subject to the approval of the Board of
Admiralty. Lord Stanley of Alderley refused the Parana,
on the ground that the Admiralty surveyor had stated she
would not be able to carry the mails to St. John's in six
days. Now, here lay the point. By the new contract provi-
sions were made that the company should take the mails to
St. John's, but no time whatever was stipulated for taking
them to St. John's, although a time was fixed for their
going to Boston, which stipulation the company efficiently
carried out. (Hear.) There were no time tables for St.
John's, and no provisions for the delivery of the mails.
Therefore when the noble lord said he was guided by the
Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, the Lords Com-
missioners, though they could not say the ship was not
competent to carry the mails to Boston, said she was not
competent to carry them in six days to St. John's, and they
said the Paranaecoeulvedrunmeetngtot.o
take
es
this
ss
sadfvaaihr
taangde
of
frotpheer
coursefor the
company when the Postmaster-General had no means of
knowing whether a vessel could perform the voyage or not ?
He (Mr. Gregory) had felt much obliged to the hon. gen-
tleman for the answer he gave him yesterday. He (Mr.
Gregory) wished to know what were the penalties which
had been imposed upon other companies, whether any in-
dulgences had been extended to other companies, and par-
ticularly to the company of Sir Samuel Cunard. But whilst
the Government was heaping and imposing all these penal-
ties upon the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, what
were the penalties to which the Cunard Company was
liable ? The only penalty which could be imposed upon
that highly subsidised company was a fine of £lOO for not
having a ship ready. Nothing could be charged for over-
time; there was no power to determine the contract for
delay, and there were no time tables. But would th e
house !permit him to refer to the correspondence of
Lord Stanley of Alderley with the Cunard Com-
pany, in which that noble lord did himself great credit
for his indulgence and his immense concessions. In 1853 the
noble lord, writing of the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navi-
gation Company, said that the mode in which the company
had kept its contracts had been made the subject of several
complaints. The company had admitted the correctness of
the charges. After mentioning a date, he said that from
that period the company had kept to their stipulations as to
time on three occasions only, sometimes they had exceeded
it by 14 or 15 days—(hear, hear)—and on the average they
failed to keep time for four:,days on each voyage. (Hear,
hear.) During a period of from February 1850, to March
1853, the duplicates of letters sent by the mail had been re-
ceived in Liverpool before the letters themselves had arrived
at Southampton. (Hear, hear.) Then followed a rowa
rk.
are
satin
able passage, in which the noble lord said, ".
that the Atlantic Royal Mail Company as
difficulties to contend with, that it has made great
an efficient
Weaetheadxergtirlast
and incurred heavy expense towards providingthas been treated
supply of vessels. On the other hand,
i e
with great indulgence, and great alloys
magnitudeanc4 r
et
shavoef b et
he ne
ma
nat de
e
for the sake cf its losses and of -
receive
ships,''
i very
( o
rests
a rhear.)involved." 1
Thesehe ywhich
sub
re
bd o seseen f
e t
s
large, and they have neve.
ear.)The abandonment of the
t exposedhe consistedey
to
h
of public tender. (Hear, j
without North Americananydiminution
branch o
within
the
subsidy,
year
had
a
of theten contract
rendered competition
he
rate of payment per mile much greater than was agreed on
when the company was formed. It has been very often as-
serted that other parties would have been willing to under-
take the service. Under these circumstances we are of opinion
that, on the whole, it would not be fair towards the com-
pany, at the present moment, to destroy the company, or to
inflict any penalty; nevertheless, the public interests de-
mand that a stricter course should henceforth be adopted."
He (Mr. Gregory) could not help looking at this decision as
a great national misfortune. He would not say that the town
of Galway had received the greatest and most marked
benefit from the opening of this route, That would be
most unfair and censurable observation. But he might re-
Mina the house that already Belfast and the north of Ire-

land had been struck with the necessity of communication
with Galway, and had considered it a matter of such vital
importance, that a line was now commenced, and would
shortly—he believed within six months—be finished, for
the purpose of connecting Galway and Belfast by steam
communication. He might also say that the south of Ire-
land had been so impressed with the necessity of having
communication with the town of Galway that a line was
sanctioned last year by Parliament to connect Limerick,
Cork, Waterford, and the south-west of Ireland, with Gal-
way, and he very much feared that the withdrawal of the
contract would make the company apply to Parliament to
be released from their engagement. In former years,
partly from the opinion of the commission which sat in
1841, and partly from the general impression that prevailed
in England, all idea of postal communication between Ire-
land and America was pooh-poohed as a foolish proposition.
Sir S. Cunard then stated that if he should be induced to
enter into such an arrangement he must have an enormous
increase of subsidy. But Sir S. Cunard had discovered the
absolute necessity to accommodate the south of Ireland,
and the consequence was that they had Cork now a port of
eall without any increase of subsidybeing asked for. (Hear,
hear.) Other companies also, who were formerly of opinion
that Liverpool was the only place to be accommodated, had
now found out that Londonderry required to be accom-
modated also, and Ireland was now accommodated with
three distinct points of departure for America. Both the
north and south of Ireland owed a considerable debt of
gratitude to Galway, for they might rest perfectly assured
that it was from no love of them that Sir S. Cunard sent
his vessels to Cork, and Mr. Allen sent his to Londonderry,
and they might rest assured also that when jealousy was
extinguished love was likely to wax faint. (Laughter and
cheers.) Well, then, with regard to this subsidy, which
amounted to £78,000 a year, let them see for a moment
what were the advantages that England derived from it.
(Hear.) Just now news from America was eagerly sought
for in every quarter; to obtain news a few days earlier was
a matter of vital importance to those engaged in trade, and,
when the Postmaster-General said the other night after all,
so far as England was concerned, the vessels might as well
be running from Queenstown, inasmuch as the Queens-
town vessels went to New York as soon as the Galway ves-
sels, the noble lord appeared quite to have forgotten the
importance of those telegraphic messages from St. John's,
that brought news four or five days later than the direct
ocean communication. (Hear, hear.) Hints had been
thrown out that there should be a line of ships touching
Ireland, and that Ireland might be satisfied with that, or
that there should be another contract submitted for compe-
tition. But he confossed, considering the hardships which
this company had suffered, and considering also the dange
that the new contract would be accepted by persons whose
only object would be to do away with this communication
between Ireland and America, he hoped the House of Com-
mons would take a just view of the question,and would extend
its indulgence to this particular company. (Hear, hear.)
Again, he thought that Galway had peculiar claims to this
favourable view of the case. Galway, as everybody knew,
was not very rich, but very large and liberal subscriptions
had been entered into, and the Galway town commissioners
had assessed themselves to the amount of 4d. in the pound
to provide better accommodation for the port by supplying
a suitable landing-place, and the county had resolved, not
only by the resolutions of two grand juries, but also by the
Presentment Sessions, upon a tax of Id. in the pound, to
improve the harbour and provide for this communication.
It was always being thrown out that Ireland was never
ready to help herself, and he wanted to show to the house
how ready the people of Galway had been in this case to
put their hands in their pockets—not very deep, it was
true ; but they had done their best, and he thought that
some consideration ought to be shown to them on that ac-
count. (Hear, hear.) While upon this point, let him refer
to a circumstance which had occurred, showing the differ-
ence with which one company was sometimes treated from
another. He referred to the course that was taken by the
last Treasury towards Ireland and towards Scotland. Last
year the harbour commissioners oe Galway asked permission
of the Treasury to expend £1,200 of their harbour dues in
laying down moorings, but permission was refused, although
the effect of granting it would only have been to postpone
for six months the last instalment of the debt. Simultane-
ously with that refusal, on July 23, 1860, an act was passed
to provide for the settlement and discharge of debts due by
the commissioners of the harbour and docks of Leith. Thoir
debt amounted in the year 1838 to so less than £528,374,
and Heaven only knew what it amounted to in July, 1860 ;
but this immense debt contracted by the city of Edinburgh
was compromised by the Treasury on the payment of
£50,000. That was the treatment experienced on the one
side of St. George's Channel and upon the other. (Cheers.)
This was a very vast question, and he was afraid the people
of Ireland would not look upon the decision in this case in
the light that it was intended ; he was afraid that the course
which had been pursued would add another to the many re-
sentments that were cherished in that country against Eng-
land—(cheers)—that it would be considered in that country
that that course had been adopted from a grudging envious
spirit towards any undertaking that was calculated to bring
Ireland into rivalry with Scotch or English enterprise.
(Cheers.) This might be all very erroneous and very unrea-
soning, and he was perfectly ready to acknowledge that it
was so, but those who undertook the management and go-
vernment of a country must make allowance for public sen-
timents. The House of Commons—which set up to be a
shining light to the whole world, and which was supposed
to support every measure it passed upon the solid basis of
argument and reason alone—had last year to defer to what
was called unreasoning and erroneous sentiment. The most
impoz tent provision was struck out of the Census Bill solely
in deference to what the Home Secretary called an unreason-
ing sentiment. Though the sentiments he had described were
unreasoning and erroneous, it must still be remembered
that they were the sentiments of a large section of the people
of Ireland. He remembered an Under Secretary for Ireland
—Mr. Drummond—the man who made use of the cele-
brated expression that "property had its duties as well as
its rights," said that, "How to do it was a matter in the
govern ment of Ireland quite of as great importance, in his
mind, as what to do." Now, he wished the Government
would take that opinion into their consideration; and they
might rely upon it that they would be no losers if the con-
tentment of the people were a gain and a success. He was
perfectly aware that her Majesty's Ministers had great dif-
ficulties to contend with—and they had the greatest of all
difficulties to contend with, which was the difficulty arising
from the ignorance of "how to do it." (Hear.) Her Ma-
jesty's Ministers were in the position that they had not one
single Irish member connected with the Cabinet from whom
they could obtain the slightest reliable information as to the
temper and opinion of the people of Ireland. (Cheers.)
They did not even attempt to consult any of those out of
office who would be willing to enlighten them upon the sub-
ject. (Hear.) As paradoxes were at a premium in the Cabi-
net, perhaps they acted upon the hypothesis that the opinions
of persons who were well informed upon a subject might be
so engrained by prejudice that it would be better not to go
to them for their opinion. But whether this was their theory
or not it was unquestionably their practice, and they would
have every opportunity of carrying out that principle w,th
the most perfect and most uninterrupted success ;
because he conceived that when the Irish supporters of ber
Majesty's Government:went back to their constituents their
fidelity to their party would not be, as heretofore, a matter
for glorification, but a matter for excuse, (Chee ra.) He
knew perfectly well it would be thrown in their teeth that
his argument went to this, that Ireland was to be governed
by grants, subsidies, and contracts. (Ironical cheers.)
That was not the meaning he wished to convey. 'rho ques-
tion at issue was not this miserable dole of £76o9oo—the
question was whether, while English enterprise) was to
meet with favour, Irish enterprise was to be treated with
disfavour. (Cheers.) It was the question of the s;pirit and
animus which had influenced the Government from the be-
ginning to the end of this unhappy matter—it was the ques-
tion whether political antipathies were to be indulged in at
the expense of Ireland—whether in wounding Imbued the:
could discredit Lord Derby, and gratify party pique by thehe
destruction of a nation's hopes. (Loud cheers.) V Vheno
went back to those who sent him to that house he,
esh,
had
be forced to tell them that her Majesty's Governnte, t
'bent she
given another proof that Ireland might contrishben
sh ould not
should not receive ; that she might sow,
the reasons; he had
the rich man's table. (Cheers.) n the paper, and the
reap, that she was not worthy of the
Forcrumbs
stated he had placed the motion
'Wed
upon was thiis—that
en chosenb for their
it might satisfac-
tory which the question s hould be
committee, instead of having a large comm but
that fell from
in he wished it to be sated
ability and impartiality,&meeittee one member to condo et
tory to place u
ofP°l"he Ireland, and one member to d
left to the arbitration ofanfivdep
defend
the case on the part
all he could say was that •
but in insisting
the Government, egerhantplesm
question should be judged
that this qu° not merely Upon the
letter but in the spirit of the contract, he should acquiesce
u;th the most perfect readiness in the impartial decision of
five English gentlemen.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I rise to reply to some observations
which the hon. gentleman made at the commencecmeat of
his speech. It was an irregularity, no doubt, to refer to a
former debate, but since the hon. gentleman has c hosen to
commit the irregularity, I must be permitted to &Wow him.
The hon. gentleman has made a charge against rae of want
of frankness in this matter, and I am bound to state to the
house what occurred. There had been on the morning of a
very important debate an imputation mentioned ha a news.
paper of the most general circulation (the Times) that there
had been a bargain made between the Government and the
Irish members, and that in consideration of £36,0 00, to be
paid for the Galway contract, the Irish members were to sup-
t the Government. Now, I consider that as a calumny
I stated on the part of the Government that itwas a calumny
upon the Government. I certainly had a right to do that.
(Cheers.) It was obvious that the imputation, was made
against the Government on the one side and .a/ faint the
Irish members on the other. It was my business as a mem-
ber of the Government to deny the imputation a s regarded
the Government. The right hon. member (Mr . Disraeli)
spoke rather
early in the debate, and referred it icidentally
to the question of the Galway contract; and then, afore it be-
came my opportunity and my duty to refute t'M P care nYIt-was for the Irish members to refute that part of the with
ca-
lumny which referred to themselves. (Oh, 010 ,u
regard to the conduct of the Government, I stated that I
had been informed by my noble friend that a ;gentleman
who seemed entitled to ask the question he .d ask( him to
13aornillgt
OWN,' '
receive a deputation of Irish members ofd

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 tv Ltl glint
have the opportunity of publicly disclaiming the imputa-
tion. It is not my intention to enter into any question
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 has 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 Adriatic, which had been purchased from
the Americans. The contract required vessels of 2,000 tons
eNveaeorh, with 450 horse-power; and four steamers of that class
necessary to perform the service. Those four steamers
n orderede to be built by the company. The first was the
Connaught, which ought never to have crossed the ocean.
To the astonishment of everyone she made one passage. On
her second she Sanprdattergea tremendous leak and took fire, and
the passengers
on
wtzere only saved by the greatest
heroism and. darin phalsttof 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
tstahlaynases 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, shy,
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 days beyond
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 to the uttermost farthing?
(Hear, hear.) With regard to this contract, the circum-
stances connected with it were to be deplored, and by no
parties so ranch
disputes with rbegasarabytatht
be companyaseeo ntractcontracts concerned.
could
be Ud
decided
itdoeldB 5i
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
aseemed 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
the company ? They were allowed from April, 18a:9e to
of
June, 1860, to collect capital and to prepare their vessels
and if there were no more than that, and the vessels were
not ready at the time specified, there would be good ground
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 consequence of such a state of
things necessarily was that the shareholders fellthe 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 application to him to 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 between Belfast and
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
ienApot
Todont
sNii
hsnbml
eeCedtpae:Ees nrpaeLecnededhedLod batOniglvt
considered,oßeemstntl
cahtfaaoilatmfltme
scarcely
btoorwahlsufmnyieotltmhhflr
greatiiet
ntl4sXta
ieaw
intseChdd evHtnwihfirhtnrtpiQpe immediate
drhhrU:ei
paa
importance,
cokser
nit e
deehat, said,—
Theersswteuhlohbafna servicejit
ttceot
hhecwiertt,
son itd
bae.
portionoasloa.shtfrsdk7eeuheh radhlbeett
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 aintaarulegtehnecef,acts of the case? The company began
IT inadequate the
servicee without any request for a postponement beyond the
time which had been fixed. They received in the first place
thes
ttahenaoasdue to thef era e
adequatet i o
ao
saenisy.
Nextpenalty,
theyof s send-
ing nr
--
Avasg
ra natee d .tcoeiwti em of the
indulgence of substituting a monthly for a fort-
nightly
wrvicen ie
s October they requested the
altogether,ehej
nitahne
n at
tht
postponementfresh
wn
ac
se
tprousetpthonaetmtheenatgof'reement under till March. It is
finally conceded was not signed till
.lo
eueetththeeda;taortohsee only
from
we should forgectornall
from the unwillingness of the company
oeefestolic.iteovtehernment
con-
ditions of the agreement. The interynticoonn
com-
pany beeny
that that
could ev ebsehou fairlyl makegre n
granted,
that was faulty or questionable in the formation and origi-
nal terms of the contract, and that if any-question of default
againsta e i t shoulditr
We h
v bea ruled
rather
carried
out in
thosefavour
intentions,o f the company
and
thanhave
given to the Galway Company at least as much indulgence
only
abpe
cs eavues
en ai
tl iwt tal es me
uorr ee.o
nWe
cei
epnut
itoauns
;loner!
cans
dt to
o anyth eo other,
raanedt
belief that, after so much and such varied indulgence had
been granted, any further relaxation would destroy our
power and standing ground for the future, and would lee-
of the contract at all. As py hon. friend the member for
tually prevent us from at any time enforcing 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