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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 15, 1861.

not redound to the honour of a government department,
and he thought ho knew what a court of law would say f
snch 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
America 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 hoged, therefore, the house would agree
that there were very fair grounds for reconsidering this
question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,—
The hon. and learned gentleman has adverted in the latter
portion of his speech to matters of great importance, which,
at the same time, do not fall within the immediate subject
of debate. The special claim of Ireland for a packet service
is material to be considered, but it is not proposed that it
should be considered by the committee which we are now
asked to appoint, and it scarcely lies within the terms of the
order 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
from assuming that, because the Government agree to the
motion, they accede to his general views more than is con-
sistent with their duty. The hon. member for 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 subsidies:as 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. Thege-
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 ima 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
appointei in order to take advantage of the position of Ire-
land to make the quickest possible passage between WI-eat
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 case 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 case. 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 thaCrepresentation. T 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 was 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 Government, and no evidence of it has yet been pro-
duced. That will be one of the points, of course, into which
'he committee will inquire. I cannot separate the condu'

by Parliament. Well
arose, in which the co' _
ect
;nt would pay a subsidy to be voted of my noble friend the Postmaster-General from that of the , e
purely Irish question, but an imperial question, he was not
affirmed that she wasahe then, when the case of the Parana Government, because in the course he followed he was not askted
tto express any opinion en the subje. ille should
contract was rescinded, the company without the concurrence of his colleagues. My hon. friend liTs
seantiseLientttoo
nthtmeteheeraml luteesrt
wasio n
tobut u n y
be referred to ea e
selectr e s s
the time. That was a
that they said that
shad Performed
vessel, and in proof of the member for Galway was entirely mistaken as to the cir- committee.
performed the voyage within cumstances connected with the proposed inquiry into th
nonfesit:on to be tried not in that conduct of the Crimean War. I certainly do notfor a moe- Col. DICKSON considered that the hon. member for
house nor even in a court Galway deserved the thanks of the house for the manner in
alißaut it seemed to him ment question the right of the house, through their cone- owfhgeh toenharnd
obrorzulhrti‘tihoentsruobnje'eocnt leeforoeveticeteL. Lhaetiallttactk
that the contractor should bwe-
eirvessels, way
opportunity of investigation. Now, :Tau fair and full mittees, to examine, and, if they see fit, to censure the eon- the Galway Company;which he alwy4:''srentertained, andyheo the company ? They were allowed fie
mvras the case of duct of the Government. What I maintain is that it has had, in order to carry out the feeling, been at much trouble
positionunadf
preparAeptrhil, 1859, to not been the intention of the Government to treat the Gal- the
vessels
vecoal3rogw
to
os cdoomwptotisiead of the
elarsoUelearrannas.in the e woarld r
not ready at the time specified, there would be
good...rovrere What are the facts of the case ? The company began the after the election and the defeat of Lord Derby thatw
tahisonor;
service without any request for a postponement beyond the
for repudiating the contract. But look at the 6
timeth which had been fixed. They received in the first place against the company was raised, and it was clear that hen,
the Indulgence, without the exaction of any penalty, of send- a suvtaptraenfteirveeclotrhtne,monatdttell•abtetillieg
sburrsrdhtsbheofttort
itentlemen had not cared to use it on the hustings. echo
the company during that time. The contractors were bound
hand and foot to the contract, but the other party to it was
be tlinseuel.
free. (Hear, hear.) The consequence of such a state of ceivieduatdhenate instead of adequate vessels. Next they re- until the committee reported. He denieyd that the hon. mem-
things necessarily was that the shareholders fell back, as nightly
serviedioulgenee of substituting a monthly for a fort- ber for Galway had appealed to the house ad misericordia,
the security on which they were to advance their money, postponement oeitheld when in October they requested the thecohno
foorrthaehbeelai9ekveel that Galway was fully entitled to the sup-
namely, the subsidy of £75,000, might turn out entirely was granted to themsoefrythice altogether, the fresh indulgence p Mr. DUNLOP disclaimed the imputation that he had
worthless. Therefore, when the hon. member for Montrose true that the agreement unedeP°r stnement till March. It is acted in the spirit of a partisan in anything connected with
told the hotuse that there were two ships on the builders finally conceded was not signedwttilelh
Jan,
postponement was the contract in question. He believed, as coairman of the
stocks, but that the money was not there to take them off, from the unwillingness of the company to
but that arose only committee on contracts, he had conducted the business be-
mPany to accede to the fore is most impartially. The noble lord opposite had con-
he was only proving the case which had been made out by ditions of the agreement. The intention of the con-
founded two questions, totally distinct, the propriety of
Government
the hon. member for Galway. (Hear, hear.) When one has been that we should make every coacesei maintaining a post at Galway, and the question whether the
party was free to repudiate the contract, whilst the other piny that could be fairly granted, Qat we shruld
to the cora- contract with the company in question should be continued,
forget all He hoped the Government would never decide a question
was bound under heavy penalties, it required no keen in- that was faulty or questionable in the formation a
sight into the motives of men to know that shareholders nal terms of the contract, and that if aneequeeteen d
nof de°frigi; ofto tttio'smsoerrtitianorfetteenteteesttoiolnittsieTtl feelings, but in reference
would postpone the payment of calls as long as possible. arose it should be ruled rather in favour of the company thanaul Mr. ENNIS thanked the Government for the concession
(Hear, hear.) Then with regard to the obligation of the against it. We have came" out those intentions, and have which they had made in acceding to the appointment of this
company to carry the mails to St. John's, the company given to the Galway Company at least as much induigeue committee. He had long entertained the idea of establishing
We
__ ,
an
Communication between the west of Ireland and America,
said that they were not bound by the terms of the con- as to any other, and perhaps even a little more.
put n and should be perfectly ready to afford the committee all
tract to do so. He looked at the contract, and it seemed end to the contract only because it was our conscientious the information
in his power on the question. It was no
to him to be very doubtful whether they were bound belief that, after so much and such varied indulgence had part of the duty of the Postmaster-General to speculate on
to do so, But what did the Postmaster-General doe been granted, any further relaxation would destroy our tenO epeed of the Parana. The proper course was to have
Upon an • •pnt the vesselproposedco on trial. He had every confidence that the
application to him to postpone the' starting of a power and standing ground for the future, and would effec-
particular sh'
(gear mmtee would consider the question fairly and
ip he not only exacted the penalty but he in- t 11 prevent us from at any time enforcing the conditions fully, sisted upon the company's signing admission ua
Ycontractat all. As hon. friend the member for Colonel ear.)
. an that his of the
said, I
my
mil- GREVILLE said that long before the contract
construction of the contrawas annulled a.
contract was right and theirs was wrong, can conceive nothing more
(Hear, hear.) Re said that the • ng.
Mmitmse
has
contract. Then inclinationo had been shown to upset the
•department had no /1 ht to '
g chievous tban a large extension _
of the practice of conces- trary to the Postmaster-General had stated that, eon-
put that duress upon the precotice, the contract had been given
company, (Hear, hear.) He hadlions the Government in regard to these contracts. without competition.
by
never known such a thing done before,N w that was a question into which
and he hoped it (Hear.) Only consider the Power which it puts into the the Postmaster-General had • -
_no right to enter. (Hear,
would not be made a precedent
of. (liear, hear.) It would hands of the Government of trafficking for political ilAillis i. hoar.) The conduct or the r oetmaeter-General could not

but no steps were ever taken by them to accomplish their
purpose. (Cheers.) There were placed before the Govern-
ment representations in favour of this communication
between Galway and the nearest point of America,
signed by all the great capitalists, all the great firms and
the Chambers of Commerce in the country. (Hear.)
But they did not stir in the matter, and the
Government took the responsibility of interfering.
They took means of ascertaining whether there
was any prospect of private enterprise, or private capital,
unassisted and unsanctioned by the Government, taking it
up, and they leant from all quarters that the supposition
was quite illusory. And very naturally so. Had not this
country for a long period of years adopted a different policy
on a most extensive scale, and sanctioned the interference
of the State ? (Hear.) Had you not had considerable and
extensive services from various ports of England, assisted
by subsidies from the Treasury to a large amount ? Were
not they proofs that private capital could not efficiently un-
dertake the duty, and could you expect private capital in
Ireland to effect that which private capital in England
shrank from attempting ? (Cheers.) We ourselves believed
that it was of the utmost importance for the public welfare
and generally for the advantage of Ireland that this com-
munication should be established. (Hear.) But then We
are told that we made a great mistake, because, having
come to that opinion, we did not put the enterprise up to
public competition, The subject was well considered by
the Government of Lord Derby, and it was the result of
their deliberation that nothing could be more unwise, and
indeed, to a certain degree, nothing could be more unjust
than to put that service up to competition. We found a
company before us established to a certain extent, and in
possession of a colonial contract which gave it a great ad-
vantage—(hear)—but at the same time we were assured, and
we believel and still believe that, if we had resolved upon
establishing that communication between Ireland and Ame-
rica by competition, great companies, with the command of
large capital, whose interest it was to prevent any such com-
munication, would have taken advantage of that public
machinery of competition, and ultimately would virtually
have suppressed the very enterprise we wished to foster.
(Cheers. Whether, therefore, we look to the policy of the
enterprise, which is no longer impugned, or to the means
to which we had recourse, and which I with confidence
vindicate, thsre is no point to which objection can be
taken. But then we are told that though the policy might
bo right, and though the means might not be questioned,
vet the conduct of the company, when once we had granted
This contract, was so unsatisfactory and so unequal to the
occasion that they had no claim whatever to the considera-
tion of the State, and that the conduct of the Government
in the course they have recently taken was not only justi-
fied but necessary. But is that the fact ? (Hear, hear.)
There is no doubt that it was an enterprise of no slight
difficulty to establish this communication between Ireland
and America. (Hear, hear.) The very difficulty alone jus-
tified the interposition of the State, and that interposition
was not an accessory but the condition of success. It was
the credit and strength which the sanction and assistance
of the State gave which allowed the company, and could
alone allow the company, to succeed. What was the
assistance which the State gave after the policy was adopted
and the contract signed F I say it was an alternation of neg-
lect and menace. (Cheers.) That is the complete history
of the relations between the Government and the Galway
Company. It was the cheerful grant of the subsidy which
was the foundation of the credit and capital of the company.
(Cheers.) There was no other reason which could justify
the interference of the State, and chilling and churlish as-
sistance really prevented its success. (Hear, hear.) It was
worse than chilling and churlish. It was critical and hostile
from the beginning. What was the reason of this conduct
on the part of the Government? There was a dissolution of
Parliament, a change of Administration, and those who were
responsible for the policy and who signed the contract left
office. What was the cause of the conduct of our successors ?
I confess lamat a loss to say. Nothing has surprised me
more than that noble lords and right hon. gentlemen oppo-
site, when they have acceded to office, should have always felt
it one of their first duties to blacken the conduct and character
of their predecessors. (Cheers.) I should have thought that
they might have been contented with their success. Their
triumph has generally been obtained on easy terms. I think
that, considering the unnatural coalitions which have some-
times been called into existence to expel us from power, the
impossible pledges, and the impracticable policy to which
they have given their public adhesion, in order that they
might sit on these benches, might have satisfied them.
(Cheers.) No one onthis bench, at least, has ever begrudged
them their triumph, however obtained. With such unequi-
vocal success at least they might have spared themselves the
task always to blacken the character and conduct of their
predecessors. (Hear, hear.) It was the same in 1852. It
was the same in 1859. In 1852 we were responsible for tho
conduct of the Admiralty. We were in office less than a
year. The Duke of Northumberland was then First Lord.
He found the affairs of the Admiralty in no satisfactory
state. There was great alarm in the country, and a great
call on the Government to produce a Channel fleet. To
the Duke of Northumberland alone, supported, of course,
with the entire sympathy of his colleagues, belongs the
credit that in less than a year we had a Channel fleet.
(Hear, hear.) So far the Government in 1852 might have
left office without any attempt on the part of their success-
ful rivals to blacken the conduct of that department. But,
on the contrary, a most amiable and accomplished man,
much beloved in this house, and by all who knew him was
hunted to death by the noble lord. (Cheers from the Op-
position ; and cries of " Oh I" and " Question 1" from the
Ministerial benches.) The most exaggerated and miser-
able charges were brought against him for conduct which
all his predecessors had been allowed to pursue with impu-
nity, in order to raise a :cry against the Government of the
day. (Cheers.) In the year 1859 there was only the Gal-
way contract, and I should conceal ray convictions if I did
not say that the licence of public life was stretched to
create an unjust odium against the Government. (Cheers.)
What is the consequences of these illegitimate means of
attempting to create a false sympathy and raise an unfounded
an unjust odium against the conduct of their predecessors?
(Hear.) If I had really perpetrated that job which I am
described in the public prints to have done, and which some
in this house have insinuated that I have done, do you
think I should have drawn the contract in the form in
which it appears on the table now for our consideration ?
Remember, that until this Galway contract it was in the
power of the Government, on their own authority, to enter
into these contracts, and Parliament had no control over
them. Who was the first Minister who put in that language
which brought these contracts under the supervision of the
House of Commons. Why, it was the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer of the Administration of Lord Derby. (Cheers.)
And I say that if I had been influenced by those corrupt
motives which have been imputed, should I have put that
language into a contract which made it amenable to Parlia-
ment, or should I not rather have shrouded the contract in
the old language of such engagements, which would have
permitted me to have defied the criticism of Parliament ?
(Hear.) I did nothing of the kind. I sanctioned the remo-
delling of these contracts because I felt that the Govern-
ment of which I was a member would not have ratified a
contract which they did not believe was for the public wel-
fare, and because I thought that my successor in office,
whoever he might be, would be animated by far too exalted
and generous sentiments to find time at such a moment to
blacken the conduct of his predecessor. (Cheers.) After a
year has passed, the conspiracy havingsucceeded, no doubt
---m here do we find ourselves ? We have had, I think, as
remarkable a piece of Parliamentary conduct with reference
to this contract on the part of her Majesty's Government
as I ever recollect. The motion of the hon. member for
Galway was, in fact, a vote of censure. (Cheers,) It was a
proposition that the house should appoint a committee to
consider the announced decision of the Cabinet. (Cheers.)
If the committee came to a different decision from the Ca-
binet the only logical conclusion should have been that the
committee should sit on these benches. (Cheers and laugh-
ter.) Every effort was made on the part of her Majesty's
Government that there should be no mistake or misconcep-
tion on this point. Their friend q, however, annoyed by their
policy in this respect, charitably intimated—to use the lan-
guage of the evening—that it was a departmental error. (A
laug). But the Government would not for a moment agree
that it was a departmental error. It was a policy upon
which Cabinet Councils were ostentatiously called, upon
which they pompously sat, and the result of which was
announced to us with ostentation by the Prime Minister.
(Cheers and laughter.) They had considered the subject.
The Postmaster-General had nothing to do with it, or had
only an infinitesimal portion of responsibility. It was a
Cabinet question. The Cabinet had decided, and the noble
lord threw down his glove on the floor of the house. (Loud
cheers.) The hon. member for Galway gave notice of a
motion that, notwithstanding the decision of the Cabinet,
the question should be remitted to the consideration of a
committee. (Hear.) What does that mean ? Why, that
we are not satisfied with the policy of the Government. We
are not content with the decision of the Cabinet. (Cheers.)
If that is not a question of confidence, what is a question of
confidence ? (Hear.) This is the state into which wo are
brought by the tortuous policy of the Government now and
then blackening an opponent, new and then laying a trap
to injure a body of public men, now and then dis-
appointing supporters who placed confidence in them, now
and then using this contract as an object of defiance by
which to punish those who regarded more the interest of
their country than the interests of the Government. (Loud
cheers.) And it is come to this—to a scene of unprecedented
humiliation, remarkable, I must say, this night, for an un-
rivalled exposition of Irish policy by the Secretary of the
Lord-Lieutenant. (Cheers.) I wonder whether the right
hon. gentleman still retains the constitutional title of Secre-
tary to the Lord-Lieutenant. (Laughter.) Generally
speaking, when principals are not contented with their
secretaries they dismiss them, but hero we Ilion the Secre-
tary of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland agreeing in the Ca-
binet to a policy of the greatest importance to the country,
of which his Excellency, as it now turns out, on evidence
which no one can question, was kept in entire ignorance.
(Hear and laughter.) That is a very remarkable state of
affairs. I am perfectly aware of the objections which have been
urged against the office of the Lord-Lieutenant, and by none
with more liveliness and force than by the hon. and gallant
member for Liskeard. There may be abuses, but I believe
they arise from neglect and non-appreciation of the real cha-
racter of the office. Ido not think that they constitute a
sufficient reason why we should abolish a 'post now of
antiquity, of great distinction and authority, which 'by
good management and proper appreciation on the part of
the home Government might be made to exercise a sub-
stantial power and a most beneficial influence in Ireland.
(Hear.) But where is the authority of the Lord-Lieutenant,
after the exposition of his policy which has been given
to-night by his Secretary, who has rather aggravated his
sins by his explanation ? (Laughter and cheers.) If it:had
been a mere departmental question—though what thatjar-
gon means I cannot in the least comprehend—that was no
reason why the Lord-Lieutenant should be kept in igno-
rance of the decision. But, as we are now told, it is an
Imperial question, in which Ireland is deeply concerned,
and that upon such a question the chief governor of Ire•
land should not be consulted, appears to me really mon-
strous. (Hear, hear.) Well, we shall have a committee
sitting upon a subject which has already received the ma-
ture deliberation of her Majesty's Ministers. (Laughtca:4)
It will be curious for us to ascertain whether they agreed in
their conclusions ; whether they differed ; if they differed,
how they differed, and which opinion had preponderance in
the assembly. (Hear.) I shall await the report of the
committee with considerable interest. Meanwhileocupied
nearly
may
say that these discussions, which have now earalyy
12 months, more or less, have not been withoutentl
breelsiuevlte.
Whatever may be the policy of this Governm
that the policy of England towards Ireland has received
from these discussions a new aspect, which I hope may lead
to a future that may realise the hopes of the most ardent
friends of that country. (Loud and renewed cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—It can excite no suprise on the
part of those who have watched the course of administration
in this country of late years that the right hon. gentleman
should express great resentment, much indignation, and
somewhat of grief that the conduct of the successive Go-
vernments of which he has been a member should in-
variably, when they have been overthrown by adverse ma-
jorities, become the subject of public censure. (" Hear,
hear," and laughter.) That can excite no surprise. The
wonder is rather that the torrent of indignation should so
Avg have been PeAtilp auto 649414 9nly b,ng burAt

ence in particular districts of the kingdom, and you must
see how intolerable the system would become if the Execu-
tive were to be ailowed unlimited licence in casting away
the guarantees by which contracts are defended. (Hear.)
I hope in the remarks I have made I have said nothing to
exasperate or inflame the controversy. Wo are anxious
that the question should be tried in a spirit of perfect im-
partiality and fairness, and any mixture of passion in our
discussion would afford a bad precedent to the committee.
I trust that the committee will approach the task in a calm
and judicial manner, and if they do I am confident that the
result will be satisfactory to the house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. P. HENNESSY said the noble lord had defended
not only the Government, but the Irish members against
what he was pleased to call a calumny. But he (Mr. Hen..
nessy) must differ from the noble lord in thinking that if
the Irish members had voted against the Government on
the paper duties question, taking it as a vote of confidence
or want of confidence, they would have done wrong.
There was a precedent on this very question in the case of
the late Mr. Wilson, a member of the present Govern-
ment, who spoke against the former Government on a
vote of confidence, and one of the grounds he took was
their conduct in respect to the Galway contract. He dis-
tinctly said that he should vote against them on that ground.
In opposing LOA Derby's Reform Bill, Lord Palmerston
did not confine himself to that question, but objected to the
Indian policy, and Lord J. Russell criticised the foreign
policy of Lord Malmesbury. Surely the Irish members
were equally justified in voting against the Government on
a question of confidence when they found Government not
only now, but constantly opposed to the interests of Ire-
land. Many Irish members may have been influenced only to
a small extent by the question of the Galway contract ; but it
was the last straw that broke the camel's back. The whole
policy of the Government with respect to Ireland was bad,
and even the conduct of Irish business in this house was
highly unsatisfactory—to such an extent, that the Irish
members would be justified in putting her Majesty's Go-
vernment out of office as soon as possible. There was not a
single Irishman in the Cabinet, nor was there in that house
a single Irish officer of Government. For the first time
since the Union they saw the offices of Attorney and Soli-
citor-General filled by Englishmen, and all the Irish offices
either by Irish or Scotchmen. Everything relating to Ire-
land was brought before the house by Englishmen totally
ignorant of the country they were legislating for. Every-
thing relating to Ireland was referred to select committees
where the Chief Secretary for Ireland sat as chairman, and
Irish gentlemen appeared as witnesses, so that Ireland was
legislated for by select committees. The Government refused
to give Volunteer corps to Ireland, but the Irish members
were expected to vote for Government on the grant of
L 1,300,000 for the Volunteer corps of England, towards which
the Irish people contributed, but from which they derived no
direct benefit. However, no Irish member opposed that
vote. He thought the Irish members had better transfer
their allegiance to those who knew something about Ireland,
and whose policy had always been fair and generous to-
wards Ireland, who, when out of office in 1847, proposed
large grants of public money to relieve Irish distress, which
were refused by this house in consequence of the opposition
of the Liberals, especially Lord John Russell. The hon.
member for Monti ose read a very interesting paper showing
the casualties which had occurred to the Galway Company.
He would read a paper which would give some information
to the hon. gentlemen, and to the Government. He pro-
ceeded to read an account of the accidents and losses of other
companies, receiving in some cases larger subsidies than the
Atlantic Royal Mail Company had received. It might be
said that these were all accidents, but he said the same of
the Galway Company. There was in this matter not only a
national but a commercial jealousy. The direct rival of the
Galway Company was Inman's. The Galway Company had
401 passages in the year, Inman's 116, and Atlas 81. When
these companies found that the Irish company was beating
them out of the field, they got up a story that it was a
failure, and get their friends to exercise a pressure on the
members of the house and on the press to appose it. Lord
Brougham had said that the Irish members were desirous
of putting money in their purse, and that if Government
had yielded on the question of the Galway contract it would
be a money bribe. Now, he should like to know the opinion
of the noble lord on those questions behind the Treasury
Benches, who, in the debate on the paper duties, stated to
the house specifically the amounts of money they would
lose if the bill were not carried? If they were justified,
surely the Irish members were right in voting against Go-
vernment on a question of confidence, not from pecuniary
interest, but for the interest of the country they represented.
But it was a mistake to regard this as a simply Irish ques-
tion. The house ought to support the Galway contract on
other than Irish grounds. The great fact which had been
lost sight of was that a contract had been entered into by
the Government of the Earl of Derby with the Galway
Company, and the present Government had thrown every
difficulty in the way of the managers and shareholders car-
rying out its provisions. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CL AY thought it very unfair that the statements of
the hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) ought not to
be allowed to go before the public without some qualifica-
tion and contradiction, and he contended that there were no
grounds for the statements of the hon. member that the
ships of the Galway Company were unseaworthy. Two at
least of the ships were certainly not open to such a charge ;
they were built by the contractors upon plans proposed by
the Admiralty, but considerably strengthened. The Co-
lumbia had been built very strongly, and had showed her •
self to be a good ship, despite all the accidents and casual-
ties to which she had been exposed. The Anglia would,
when completed, be, he believed, an equally good ship.
With respect to the proposed motion, he was glad to find
that the Government had acceded to the grant of the com-
mittee, and he hoped that the issue raised by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would be fairly and fully tried, and
that, as he understood it was, an unusual amount of
indulgence had been granted to this company by the
Government. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BLAKE was also glad to hear that the Government
had consented to grant the committee, and stated that the
board of directors of the Galway Company was, at present,
widely different from that which was first formed. The
chairman of the company was the owner of a larger num-
ber of steam-vessels than any man alive, and he and those
assembled with him believed that, with proper manage-
ment, the undertaking might be made a great success.
Since Ireland had, unfortunately, given up legislating for
herself, a measure of so much real and practical value had
not been adopted for that country as this Galway contract,
and he could not help thinking that a great deal of the
prosperity of Ireland depended upon the successful carry-
ing out of that enterprise. (Hear, hear.) Having paid a
compliment to the Irish Secretary for the attention he had
paid to the affairs of the sister country, he concluded by
expressing a hope that the committee now about to be ap-
pointed would arrive at a just conclusion on the subject of
the contract.
Colonel FRENCH said that many hon. members had
expressed their gratitude to the Government for having
assented to the present motion, forgetting that when the
committee had been asked for in the first instance, the
Government had refused the demand. He wished to know
from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the opinion
of the law officers of the Crown had been taken as to the
legality of determining the contract.
Lord NAAS stated that he had taken a very lively inte-
rest in this question, and that in September, 1858, he had
recommended the Government to give the Atlantic Steam
Packet Company their support. That company had had
great difficulties to encounter, principally because an orga •
nised opposition had been formed against it. It was said
that the people of Ireland had formed unreasonable hopes
on the subject of the contract, but the fact was that the geo-
graphical position of the sister country must ever point it
out as a most desirable packet station between the United
Kingdom and America. That geographical position enabled
Galway to have 30 hours' start of London in the matter of
departure; and as to the advantages of Galway as a place for
the reception of telegraphic messages, its importance could
hardly be o verratect. It was absurd to say that indulgences
similar to those given to the Galway Company had not been
given to others, because it so happened that the Royal Mail
Company, trading to the West Indies, received a subsidy
of £22,000 a-year. The Government had taken a most ex-
traordinary course within a short time upon this question.
They had terminated the contract suddenly, and now they
had agreed to the motion for a committee of inquiry. The
very fact of their agreeing to the motion was a proof that
they themselves entertained a doubt as to the correctnesss
of the course they had previously taken. Could any com-
mittee afford them any information beyond what they
had already in their possession? Why had they not that
evening boldly and openly defended their past proceedings?
11, ould they be bound by the decision of the committee ?
These were questions which ought to be answered. He be-
lieved that the whole proceeding with regard to the con-
tract was at variance with Parliamentary precedents, and
that there never had been any fixed determination on the
part of the Government in the matter. It was somewhat
singular that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in answer to
a deputation, should have admitted that he was wholly un-
acquainted with the circumstances of the case; and this w s
the more extraordinary, seeing the intimate relationship
which existed between him and the Government. He com-
plained that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not been
made acquainted with the intentions of his colleagues on
this question, which, although in some respects a depart-
mental question, originated in, and should be viewed as a
matter of; imperial policy. He should wish for some distinct
explanation from the Government as to whether the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland was for the future to take part in all
shows and pageants, but have no share in any real act of
government. He did not look forward in at all a sanguine
manner to the result of the labour of the committee, for
nothing satisfactory could ever be arrived at until Ireland
was given that position which its geographical situation
entitled it to.
Mr. CARD WELL had no doubt that the inquiry would
be conducted with all justice and propriety. He could not
admit that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was ignorant of
the intentions of the Government, although, as it was not a

be defended. It was unworthy of him, because the com-
pany had been unable to complete their contract owing to
the conduct of Government, and on account of conditions
which had not been contemplated originally, as the Admi-
ralty themselves admitted, to break off the contract. It
was better to borrow a form of expression from the noble
lord (lord J. Russell), that ten Ministers should perish
rather than that the just claims of Ireland should be disre-
garded, and the just expectations of the people disappointed
Mr. MAGUIRE would give no thanks to the Government
for not opposing the motion ; because, if a division had been
taken, every Irish member on the opposition side of the
house, and many of their own supporters, would have gone
into the lobby against them. The Galway contract brought
Sir S. Cunard into Cork harbour, and those who were inte-
rested in Cork could not therefore do anything to injure that
contract. One successful enterprise in Ireland led to
another, and Irish people were quite as able to manage their
own affairs as people in England were able to manage them
for them. As an instance of this he mentioned that some
time ago a company was established in Cork called the St.
George's Company, which was managed in Liverpool—it
failed, and involved in its failure the ruin of hundreds of
families. Another company was started; but this time the
management was in the hands of Cork men, and it was as
successful as any company in the United Kingdom. Its
success gave rise to other companies. One successful enter-
prise gave rise to twenty others, and therefore this question
of the Galway contract was one of national importance to
Ireland, and so it was regarded by the Irish people. He
knew many who were not connected with the west of Ire-
land who had subscribed their money to the company, not
for the purpose of making money, but for the purpose of de-
veloping the undeveloped resources of that country, which
had been so neglected by the House of Commons. No
doubt it was the uncertainty in which they were left that
paralysed the efforts of this company, and this result was
owing to the Scotch radical members. He trusted that the
Government would have none of the Scotch radical element
upon this committee. (Laughter.) Let them appoint five
thoroughly honest John Bulls, five honest and impartial
men, and Ireland would be satisfied with their decision.
It was said that the hon. member for Montrose had some
connection with a particular line that felt the rivalry of the
Galway line. That might be true or not, but at all events
he exhibited a strong bias as a Scotch radical on this ques-
tion. He believed that Lord Derby entered into this con-
tract on fair and just grounds ; but whatever were the
motives under which the contract was made, it ought not
to be disturbed on political grounds. (Hear, hear. He de-
nied that any compact had been made with the Government,
or that any threat had been held out to them. He had been
spoken to by the Rev Mr. Daly on this question, and the
answer he gave him was that, though in favour of the Gal-
way contract, he was committed body and soul to the paper
question—(laughter)—that he could not vote against the
Government. He hoped that in this matter justice would
be done to Irelend, which had suffered much injustice from
all parties.
Mr. B. OSBORNE—I am neither a Scotch Radical, nor
a shareholder in the Galway company, nor committed body
and soul to the question before the house ; but, if I were
committed body and soul, I should feel bound to vote in
support of the motion. The hon. member for Galway, in
bringing forward this question, has, I think, entitled himself
not only to the thanks of Great Britain in general but of
Ireland in particular for the very lucid statement he has
made, and 'for some of the declarations it has been the
means of eliciting, not from members of the Government,
but from this House of Parliament. It was my hon. friend
the member for Montrose who said that the surveyors at
Liverpool who surveyed the Hibernia passed an opinion
that she showed symptoms of weakness. I think, if those
surveyors had inspected her Majesty's Government on this
question (a laugh), they would also have been obliged to pro -
nounce an opinion that in granting this committee so readily
the Government have shown symptoms of weakness (hear) ;
at any rate, that their bottom required some scraping (much
laughter), and that like that unfortunate ship the Hibernia,
they were now rather on their beam ends. (Hear, and a
laugh.) I complain of the conduct of the Irish Govern-
ment on this matter. I keep clear of the particular com-
pany. I take the bold line of it being necessary to cherish
and nourish Ireland in some way; but I say the Govern-
ment have shown symptoms of weakness on this principle.
Either they ought not to have terminated the contract in
such an excessive hurry—either they have shown ignorance
in making it a purely departmental question; or, having
come, as an united Cabinet, to a conclusion that it ought to
be terminated, they ought not to have turned round and
granted this committee. (Hear, hear.) I say they have
rather discredited themselves, in my opinion, than done
themselves good by showing these symptoms of weakness,
like that noble vessel the Hibernia. (A. laugh.) So much
for the Government. Now for a point to which I should
not have reverted but for what fell from my hon. friend the
member for Montrose. He has taken upon himself—l must
say in partial ignorance of facts—to style this new com-
pany, forgetting there have been two distinct companies, a
commercial sham. Does the hon. gentleman know who is
the chairman of the company ? Let me tell him the chaff: -
man of that company is one of the first commercial men not
only in Ireland, but, I believe, in Great Britain. It is Mr.
Malcomson—a gentleman whose acquaintance I have the
honour to rejoice in. What is his status in the commercial
world ? Mr. Malcomson is not only the largest cotton
spinner in Ireland, but the greatest proprietor of steam-
boats in the United Kingdom. He is the chairman of the
Galway Company. And when my hon, friend says that the
directors are men of straw and the whole thing a commer-
cial sham, I say that it is no such thing. Whatever is
opinion of my hon. friend the member for Montrose, I can
tell this house that the chairman and directors of the com-
pany are as solvent men as any merchants in her Majesty's
dominions. (Hear, hear.) I think the English members
ought to be guarded against the representations which have
been put forward—not by the member for Montrose, or
the Scotch Radicals, for, whatever may be their opinions
on Maynooth, upon mercantile transactions they have no
hatred of Ireland—but by the Irish Government. The
question is, how is the Irish Government to be carried
on ? For the Secretary of Ireland to rise and say
this is a purely departmental question is not telling us how
Ireland should be dealt with. What are the facts of the
case ? I was astonished to find that that most estimable
nobleman the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in answer to a
deputation, stated he knew nothing whatever of what was
going on on the other side of the water, and no one could
have been so surprised as his Excellency when he awoke
one fine morning and found that the Postmaster• General
had put an end to the Galway contract. If that is the way
in which you carry on the Government of Ireland, it is ut-
terly impossible that your Government or any other Go-
vernment can be popular there. (Hear, hear.) I do not
look at this question as a mere question of the Galway Con-
tract, but if you are to support the institution of the Lord-
Lieutenancy you must make it a reality. (Hear, hear.)
The reason I have always objected to the continuance of the
Lord-Lieutenancy is, not that I object to the office of Lord-
Lieutenant, but that you have made him such a king Log
that he is of no use. (Hear, hear.) If I wanted an argu-
ment against the Lord-Lieutenancy I could not have a
stronger one than this case. (Hear, hear.) Here you have
a nobleman hi the receipt of a paltry sum as Viceroy.
(Cheers.) I say it is a paltry sum—l don't like to bring
in names—the names of royalty—but he gets £20,030 to
exercise the °face of Viceroy, and you have made him a
man of no power, not able to give an opinion, and then the
right hon. gentleman comes down and tells us this is a de-
partmental question. (Hear, hear.) Without any reference
to the Galway contract, this becomes a serious question
whether the Lord-Lieutenant ought to be kept in the posi-
tion he now is. (Hear, hear.) It is all very well to talk of
justice to Ireland and to throw out fine phrases in this house
—(hear)—but having a long and intimate acquaintance
with Ireland, I say she ought to share in the same benefits
which you give to this and the sister country. You com•
plain that she knows very little of you. She only sees you
in the most disagreeable form, when the judges of assize go
their circuits, and then she is told she ought to bless her-
self for the connexion. (Hear, hear.) If the Government
had done their duty they ought to have looked at this ques-
tion as one far beyond a mere departmental question. (Hear,
hear.) I don't go on to the question of the Galway Contract
or the objects of this company, but I say that neither this
nor any other Government can shut their eyes to the just
wants of Ireland—(hear, hear)—and without going into the
Paper Duty question, my support of this or any other
Government which may come after it would materially de-
pend upon the way in which they treat the sister kingdom.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL—The hon. gentleman has entirely
mistaken me. I did not say that this was a departmental
question ; on the contrary, that, regarding it as an imperial
question, it had been settled here by the department by
which it was begun and by the Government collectively, to
whom the responsibility belonged. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—Being the individual who signed the
Galway Contract, I trust the house will not think it pre-

pumptuous on my part if I make one or two observations
before the discussion closes. (Hear.) A year has elapsed

and I find the task of defending the policy of that contract
not so difficult as a twelvemonth ago it might have seemed.
(Hear, hear.) Time and the truth which time often brings
appear to have influenced public opinion. Little less than a

year ago the attention of this house was called to the pro-
posal for another select committee on the same subject, but
moved in a very different spirit and with a very different
object. (Cheers.) A year has gone round and "the engi-
neer" is " hoist with his own petard." (Laughter.) There

_ ... ,
is a committee again to be appointed on the Galway Contract,
but I think the labours of these gentlemen who will serve on

it will be animated by a different meaning from that which

influenced those who came to a decision on our recent com.

mittee. Looking at this question generally, what is urged
against the policy of this contract ? There were many ob-
jections urged against the policy, but they all seem to have

disappeared. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the Secretary
of State the other night said that no one could for a moment

impugn the policy of the contract; and I think myself he
would be a bold man who did it. (Cheers.) Looking at
the relative positions of America and the United Kingdom
I think he would certainly assume a perilous position who
would impugn the policy of selecting, or establishing a
communication between the two countries—those two points
by which the nearest communication could take place. It
was placed before us, that if this service were established at
Galway, as between Liverpool and Galway, with respect to
reaching America there would be in favour of Galway a
saving of at least 30 hours' voyage, and as regards tele-
graphic communication, question and answer both con•

sidered, there would be an absolute saving of eight days.
(Cheers.) Even in 1858 that was an important considera-

tion with statesmen; is it less important in 1861 ? (Hear.)
No one now, therefore, according to the authority of the
Secretary of State, impugns the policy, but the means by

which it is carried into effect, are still, though much more
faintly, abused. A subsidy, it is said, is a means which is
_ _

highly to be deprecated and objected to. It is, we are told,
the office of private capital, unassisted by the credit of the
State, to undertake enterprises of this character. But does
private companies undertake the enterprises of this nature ?
What evidence have we that if the Government of

1858 had not interfered any private enterprise
with this object would have been established ?
(Hear, hear.) Is not all the evidence the other way?
(Cheers.) This is a want which has long been felt.
Philosophers and politicians had long recognised its im-
portance, merchants and traders have asserted that it was
au object of tho fiat Aecessity, And Or years they did WA,

the right hon.
The late t
at Ghoe va er
irnng-
_
be said, why
proper one.
Lord J. MANNERS expressed his regret at the remarks
which had fallen from the noble lord and
gentleman in reference to Mr. Augustus Staffo.rd. If the
step
which they had taken in
right hon. gentleman really meant what
nh
oe
desire
oosti dividere t
o s htrhi
ne
k fhouserom onan they
ment, of which he had the honour of being a member, had
reference to the whole affair.
Mr. H. HERBERT expressed epai n h
b died about
the name of Mr. Stafford beingth of that l the house.
He had been present at the death lamented gentle •
that
man, and he could surely state nothing whatever in
connection with the Galway contracthad
anything to do
with that lamentable event.
'
Mr. NEWDEGATE paid a high tribute to the memory
of Mr. Stafford, of whom he said that, if he had been de.
fended by his friends as strongly as he was assailed by his
enemies, his reputation would have remained in a different
position. He had done nothing which had not been done
before, and it would be fortunate for Parliament if
no future
member ever was connected with darker ac i r t"
p ces.
Colonel DUNNE expressed an opinion
that the present
Government was exceedingly unpopular '
wonder, for all they had done for
in Ireland, and no
in-
crease s taxation, and not spend the country was to .
The motion was then agreed to
a penny in the country.
The East India Loan Bill *
passed. was read a third time and

The Local Government Act Bill passed through commit..
tee pro forma.
The order for the Committee on the Municipal Corpora-
tions Act, was discharged.
The amendmente to the Locomotive Bill were considered
and agreed to.
The third reading- of the Courts of Justice Bill was post-
poned till Monday.
The house went into committee on the Harbours Con-
solidated Fund, for the purpose of passing a preliminary
resolution, on which to found a bill. The resolution was
agreed to, and the further consideration of the subject was
fixed for Tuesday next.
Annoyance to Jurors (Westminster) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the
house adjourned at a quarter-past one o'clock.

LONDON : Printed and Published by 3IURDO YOUNG, of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at ME SuN (Mee, No. 112,Strand,
in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the County of Illiddleaes
,Saturday, June 15, nu,