The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN,- LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1861.

IMPERIAI; PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF lORDS.—(YZSTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCFMLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

'PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Lynn and Hunstanton Railway, Waveney Valley Railway,
Ramsey Railway, Cockermouth, Keswick, and Penrith
Railway, South Eastern Railway (Folkestone Harbour),
Ware,
nadham, and Buntingford Railway, Bishop Stort-
ford, Dunmow, and Braintree Railway, Salisbury and
y, Mersey Docks and Harbour
Dorset Junction Radwa
Board, Hatfield Chase Warping and Improvement,
St. George's Harbour, Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Rail-
way, and Kirkcudbright Railway Bills,
PUBLIC WORKS IRELAND (ADVANCE AND
REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
Earl ST. GERMANS moved the second reading of this
bill.

After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE, the bill was
read a second time.
THE EAST INDIA COUNCIL, &c., BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE rose to ask her
Majesty's Government to lay upon the table of the house
copies of all reports, minutes, or other records of opinions of
the members of the Legislative Council of India or of the
committees of that council relating to the bills concerning
India now before the house, He did not ask for these do-
cuments with any intention of obstructing the passing of
the bill, but merely that all information on the subject
should be in their lordships' possession. In his opinion is
was very important that the opinions of the members of
the Legislative Council should be known, especially as they
had been freely referred to in the other house of Parliament.
He did not think that the public service would
suffer by the production of the documents he asked
for, and was therefore very anxious they should be
produced. Ho considered the bill a very admirable
one, the only clause he was disposed to object to was that
relating to the council of the Governor-General of India.
Earl DE GREY and RIPON thought the noble lord
laboured under the same misapprehension both as regards
the existence of the papers asked for, the functions of the
Indian Council, and the method of conducting business
In that department. The Indian Council was
divided for the convenience of business into com-
mittees, and the reports of those committees stood in
exactly the same positionof the minutes of the head or subor-
dinate officers of another department. These reports were in
no way records of the individual opinions of the members of
the Indian Council, and he could assure the noble lord that
their production would not be for the benefit of the public
service. With respect to the expression of opinionin con-
versation amongst themselves of the members of the
Indian Council no record was kept ; and as far as the
bills now before Parliament were concerned, he could as-
sure the noble marquis there were no recordsin the India
Office of any objection by the Council, and with respect to the
minor points there had been no expression of disapproval
whatever.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH regretted that such a
mode of proceeding was adopted in the Council of India.
Their lordships then went into committee on the bill.
Clauses from 1 up to 6 were agreed to, with some verbal
amendments.
On clause 6,
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH suggested an amend-
ment by which provincial councils could be held by an order
of the Governor-General in council, instead of by a law or
regulation of the council, and the clause, as amended, was
agreed to.
Clause 7 was agreed to after a short discussion.
On clause 8,
IThe Earl of ELLENBOROUGH objected to it as a most
dangerous innovation on the system of administration
hitherto pursued in India ; the Governor-General had here-
tofore been solely responsible for the Government, but by
this clause it was proposed to give the Government to diffe-
rent departments, and to throw upon the members of the
council that direct responsibility. The Governor-General
by this bill deprived himself of one of the most important of
his duties, that of controlling and directing military opera-
ticns. Under this clause the military members of the coun-
cil remained in the council, and they had the power of ob-
structing the Governor-General in military matters. It
appeared that Lord Canning intended corning home next
spring, so that he would not be long in India after this act
would come into operation, and his successor might be much
embarrassed by the operation of this clause,

Earl DE GREY and RIPON defended the clause,which
had been inserted on the recommendation of the present
Governor-General.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH stated his own experi-
ence when he filled the office of Governor-General, and from
that experience he felt warranted in objecting, as he did, to
the provisions of this clause. The noble earl then referred
to the evidence given by Mountstewart Elphinstone before
the select committee as justifying his opposition to the
clause.

The Duke of ARGYLL aibmitted that the evidence
alluded to referred to a subject quite different to that they
were now discussing. The cbject of this clause was to give
the Governor-General power to make provision from time
to time to divide the business among the members of the
council.

Earl GREY thought it was an innovation and a dan.
gerous practice to pass a specific act to give the powers pro.
vided for in this clause. lie thought the clause was un•
necessary, and, being unnecessary, he was of opinion ii
would be better to omit it.

Lord HARDINGE opposed the clause.
Earl DE GREY and RIPON said the Governor-Gene-
ral had not power legally to do that which this clause em-
powered him to do.

Earl GREY repeated his objections to the clause.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 9.
On clause 10 being proposed,
Earl GREY said he was opposed to this clause, which,
he thought, would have a most dangerous effect in India.
lie intended to submit an amendment which, he thought,
would be an improvement, and which, he hoped, Govern-
ment would submit to. The bill, as it stood, would not
meet the evils which it was intended and designed to
correct. The danger of the Governor-General clashing
with his Legislative Council could only be got rid of in one
way, namely, that the course to be taken by the council it-
self should be first considered by the Government at home.
The Government in this country was conducted differently
from that of India. Here members of the Cabinet may and
do differ upon certain points and a certain policy, without
any evil resulting therefrom, but the case of India was en-
tirely different. Men who were likely to compose this Legis-
lative Council had devoted their whole lives in that country
to what was considered there a profession, and having risen
to the very highest offices by their own talents and exer-
tions, it could not be expected of them to resign their offices
on account of any political differences they may entertain in
opposition to the Governor-General. He was persuaded that
ha difficult times, and as regarded questions of great public
importance, it would be perfectly impossible for the Gover-
nor-General to enforce the penalty of dismissal upon those
who did not give him their support.
Tho Earl of ELLENBOROUGH reminded his noble
friend that the clause did not give the Governor-General
the power to dismiss them.
Earl GREY continued—If that be so the difficulty was
almost insurmountable. In the present state of society in
India it was impossible to get representative
legislation, and
power must therefore rest entirely with the
Governor-Gene ral and the Executive Council, but in exercising that autho-
rity they must be responsible to the Government at home
and to the Parliament of this country. It was also of the
greatest public importance that upon every measure they
proposed the public opinion of India should be distinctly
known, and with that view he ventured to propose an amend-
ment which was similar to one brought forward a few years
ago by his noble friend near him (Lord Ellenborough); and
again, when the present bill was proposed to be read a second
time. He should move the omission of part of the clause
now before their lordships, so as to leave all authority in le-
gislation to the Governor-General and Legislative Council,
but to create another body, which should be called a Council
of State,composed of the most distinguished persons in India,
natives as well as European, who, by their talents and posi-
tion, would be entitled to act as a consultative body. He also
proposed that the Governor-General should prepare drafts
of his legislativt measures to be laid before and considered
by this body, before they were finally decided on by him
and his council, in order that their opinions be taken and
fairly expressed. In this manner the proposed laws might
be fairly discussed and their merits completely sifted, before
they finally passed. Under the existing arrangements there
was no way of ascertaining the opinions of distinguished na•
tives ; but by his plan the subjects brought forward for
legislation could be made known and discussed in large
towns—such as Delhi, Lucknow, and other places—so as to
ascertain as nearly as possible the feelings of those for whom
they were intended. His present proposal was by no means
a new one, for a similar Council of State existed in France
during the reign of the first Napoleon, and most certainly
the laws passed by that body redeemed in some measure the
horrors of the bloody wars to which it was for so many years
exposed. Under the system now proposed there was greater
danger of bringing the future Government of India to dead-
lock;' but by confining the functions of the Council of State
te a mere consultative body, to report public opinion to the
Governor-General and his Executive Council, every danger
would be avoided. He proposers that all the words after
Governor-General and Council be left out, and to add "a
Council of State to assist in the preparation and regulation
of all
measures to los Proposed, the Governor-General hay.
lag power to appoint and remove its members, subject, how-
in this country ever, to the approbation of the Secretary of State in Council
~,
Earl DE GREY and RIPON said the object of her Ma-
jesty's Governmen was to make as few changes as possible
in the existing law—t to follow
, as far as could be the course
of the
those which experience had shoament, only
evious legislation in Parliament, and to make
Wn
thanemtoer be
cose absolutely
necessary.he Ths noble earl adopted
another
proposed to establish for the first tittle body
entirely of
a novel character, and for which no pa
recedent could be
found. Under these circumstances he could not
agree
to
the amendment proposed by the noble earl. There was
nothing in the present bill calculated to extend or continue
the tills that AEI been Maui t. 9 gr9W Glib of tlat eaistiAs

constitution of the Legislative Council. The act of 1853 s
expressly used that term, but in this bill these words were '
never used, the members who were to assist the Governor-
General in deliberative or legislative councils were called
"additional members," and they were to be appointed by
him. Then the noble earl said that there was nothing said
about publicity in the bill. The reason for that was that
the Government had come to the conclusion that it was
best to leave to the Governor-General the power of deter-
mining not only the rules and regulations by which the pro-
ceedings of the council would be guided, but also to what
extent they should be published. it was also argued that •
the Governor-General might meet the same opposition from
the new members of the council ; but he could hardly be-
lieve that would be the case when it was considered that the
members who now exhibited that opposition were ex officio
members of council, whereas in the proposed councils alarge
proportion of the members would be appointed by the Go-
vernor-General, and he could not imagine that they would
combine to obstruct his policy, unless there was a grave
necessity for doing so. There would always be the Gover-
nor-General himself, and five official members of council, ,
and the Commander-in-Chief, while the additional mem-
bers would be appointed by the Governor-General from
such classes as were likely to give influence to the decisions
of the council. The alterations proposed by the bill, if
adopted, would, in fact, raise up in India a great Councilof State, apart from the Executive Government; and if it
was constituted as proposed, one of two things would
happen, either the members of that council would be
selected from classes of little weight, and so the office fall
into disuetude, or it might be composed of persons of
weight and influence, who systematically set themselves
in opposition, and then all the evils of the present system
would be aggravated and extended. On the twofold
ground, that the bill made as little alteration as possible
in the existing law—that it was approved.
of by the Gover-
nor-General, and by persons of experience in Indian admi-
nistration as an efficient remedy for the defects which had
rendered its introduction necessary, he hoped that their
lordships would not agree to the amendments of the noble
earl. 1
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGII said he heartily ap-
proved of the amendments suggested by the noble earl. So
far from being an innovation, they Were merely a restora-
tion of the old and the only popular Government in India.
They would enable the Governor• General to do by his own
authority all that it was proposed to allow him to do with
the advice and assistance of his council. For his own part
he should have no apprehension of a Council of State, com-
posed in the way proposed, interfering in any way with the
action of the Governor-General in administrative matters.
It was the only way in which a large body of natives could
ever be introduced to a participation in the governing
power of the country, and he held that such a large intro-
duction of natives was absolutely necessary. (Hear.) He
asked the house to look at the peril in which we stood.
There was now a spirit of deep hostility existing between
the natives and Europeans. The Englishmen in India
were to be counted by units as against thousands of na-
tives ; and he believed that nothing would more gratify the
people of the country than to admit them to participate in
the duties of such a Council of State. On the other hand,
he had already stated the strong objections he entertained
to the council as proposed by this bill, and he now entreated
their lordships to remember that they were legislating for
India, not for the people of this country, and it was an im-
perative duty to consider the feelings and interests of the
people of India, and not those of the people of this country.
The Duke of ARGYLL defended the clause, and said
that the arguments of his noble friend had not been
answered by the noble mil opposite, with respect to the
amendments proposed by the noble earl (Earl Grey) ; they
were wholly inconsistent with the objects and the other
provisions of the bill ; and if they were agreed to, the bill
would have to be withdrawn and totally remodelled, so as
to make it a different measure altogether from what it now
was. The noble duke proceeded to justify the provision for
giving publicity to the proceedings of the council under
certain regulations, and pointed out the advantages which
had resulted from giving publicity to the financial state-
ments of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Laing. The noble duke at
some length went on to combat other objections which had
been urged against the clause.

Lord DENMAN having said a few words,
The clause was agreed to, as were also clauses up to 22
inclusive, with verbal amendments.

On clause 23 being proposed, which went to give the Go-
vernor• General power to make an edict the force of law for
a limited period,

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH opposed the clause,
and did not think it safe to give such power to any man
whatever. Ho therefore proposed, as an amendment, that
in cases of emergency the Governor-General should have
the power, in council. of giving an ordinance the force of
law, and the power also of overruling the opinions of the
council in the same manner as he had at present of over-
ruling their opinions for any other purpose.

Earl DE GREY and RIPON thought the power pro-
posed by the noble earl a novel one, viz., to give the coun-
cil, in cases of emergency, power to deliberate on what
should be done. Her Majesty's Government were of opinion
it was better to leave it—as it always had been left—to the
Governor-General himself, acting on his own responsibility.
The clause was agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 49 were agreed to.
On clause 50 being proposed, providing a substitute for
the Governor-General in case of a vacancy,
Lord ELLENBOR.OUGH thought it would be much
better to leave the law as it had been for 87 years, which
invested the powers of the Governor-General, in case of a
vacancy, in the senior member of the council. The present
clause proposed to transfer it to the Governor of Madras.
Earl DE GREY had not been able to consider the clause
sufficiently so as to give the noble earl an answer. He
would, however, do so ; and on the bringing up of the re-
port would, if possible, accede to his suggestions.

The clause was then agreed to, as well as the remaining,
and the house resumed.

The report was ordered to be brought up on Friday next.
The Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland), and the Piers
and Harbours Bills, were read a second time.

The Chatham Dockyard Enlargement Bill went through
committee.

The County Surveyors (Ireland) Bill, and the Industrial
Schools Bill were read a second time.

The London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance Bill went
through committee.

The Harbours Bill, and the Metropolitan Police Force
Pensions Bill were, after some amendments, read a third
time and passed.

Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-YESTERDAY.

The SPEAKER took the chair at twelve o'clock,. but i
was some time before a house was formed.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the Dublin Corporation Bill
were considered and agreed to. The following bills were
considered and ordered for third reading :—Blane Valley
Railway ; Caledonian and Symington, Biggar, and
Broughton Railway Companies. The Savile Estate and
Westminster Life Insurance Society (Dissolution) Bills
were read a second time.
IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

The house went into commiteee on this bill, and the de-
bate on the following amendment of Sir J. Pakington to
the 9th clause was resumed :—At the end of the clause to
add, "Provided also, that extra-parochial places which
have heretofore paid no centributions to the common fund
of the unions in which they are comprised, shall, notwith-
standing anything herein contained, be hereafter exempt
from such contributions." He could not avoid comment-
ing on the change that had taken place in the order of the
day. Up to a late hour last night it was understood that
the Drainage Bill was to have had precedence of this bill,
and that the probability was that the latter measure
could not be brought forward at the morning sitting of
this day. Some of the members had received a
communication as late as 4 o'clock in the morning, inform-
ing them of the change in the order of business. With re-
gard to the amendment, he could not give it his support.
Mr. -VILLIERS entered into an explanation, from which
it appeared that the transposition in question originated in
a mistake, which he had endeavoured to rectify as soon as
possible.

After some conversationthe
matter dropped.
Mr. KNIGHT then proceeded
amendment would not effect the benefit
measure, and therefore he felt bound to contend that the
opposeelse
it.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that byowners
of
to proposed by the
the
this
property which had been exempted from taxation to poor
an impost which
rates would be called on to pay
contemplated when theybecame possessed of their properties.
Mr. Mr. KNIGHT moved the omission of the clause, and the
substitution of another. He maintained that the clause to
which he objected would effect an alteration in the area
of rating that was not required, and would operate
most usjustly on a class of proprietors who had not been
consulted in reference to the change. He considered that
the present was a most inopportune time for making any
alteration when poor rates were greatly diminishing under
the operation of the existing system, which it was pro-
posed to subvert. There were 9,000 parishes which would
be mulcted by the process suggested in this bill, while serious
injury upon proprietors would be inflicted. They were
disturbing by the proposed measure the actual value of
property, and the effect would be that the owners of certain
lands would be ruined. It was proposed to deprive owners
of no less than 1-16th, or in some cases of I.Bth of their
property, without giving them any compensation. If this
union rating were established it would not work efficiently,
and it was necessary the recipient and giver of parochial
charity should be mutually acquainted. Ho did
not deny that in many of the large towns relief
was required by certain large parishes. There was, no
doubt, great cruelty practised in regard to Irish poor, but
the present measure would not effect any improvement in
their condition.

Mr. BARROW opposed the amendment, and denied that
by this bill they were introducing the principle of union
rating, but merely proposing to effect a mon) equitable and
reasonable division of a particular rate. It had been said
that the bill would ruin a certain class of proprietors, but
the increase that would be made would,not in any case
amount to 2s. or 2s. 6d.

Mr. HENLEY said he could not support this clause of
the bill because, as he had mated previously, he considered
gm Ind apt pgitGiciat ia9rin4tl94 th, pubjoQta Elie

rhole of the ease in favour of the clause rested on the
authority of the committee, and without sufficient know-
ledge the Government asked the house to make a perma-
nent alteration. He stated, on the information of
the clerk of an union, that in one parish the
change proposed would mulct the inhabitants in
£3,000 a-year, which was equivalent to £30,000 capital
withdrawn from employment. It must be admitted
by any one who paid attention to the subject that the
changes proposed would benefit the poor ; but the question
then arose, were these changes to be effected in a manner
just to the parties interested ? He thought that in the dis-
tribution of this rating of the taxed landed property, which
had hitherto been exempted, they should also extend rat-
ing to mines. He drew attention to the peculiar position
in which landed property was placed, particularly to what
were called derivative settlements. He thought the whole
question of settlement should be brought before the house
prior to any permanent alteration being introduced, and
that the bill should be first tested by its operation for one
year.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that this was one of the few ques-
tions of rural and domestic economy with which he differed
from his right hon. friend who had just sat down. As
early as 1845 he had introduced a bill containing the prin-
ciple of union settlement, but he did not pass it, and it
passed into other hands. This question had been most
fully investigated by different commissions which sat in
1847, and the majority of opinion was in favour of the
abolition of the principal of removal, the extension of the
area of rating for the relief of the poor, and the eligibility of
unions to carry out that object. He considered that the
poor law in Ireland was an example we should imitate in
this country, and that the principle of settlement should not
be required as necessary to entitle a pauper to local relief.
He stated as his most confident opinion that there could be
no more beneficial alteration as regarded a large body of
their countrymen than the abolition of settlement, which
must be attended with a coincidence of union rating.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE said that he had not heard one argu-
ment in favour of the existing average on which rating was
based, and ho believed its increase would inflict the greatest
injustice.
Mr. CAYLEY opposed the bill, and contended that what
had been advanced rested on authority and not on argu-
ment.

Mr. WALTER and Sir C. JERVOISE supported the clause.
Lord LOVAINE contended that the clause would be un-
just in its operation to rural districts, and would benefit
only parishes in large towns.
Alderman SIDNEY argued that, as the management of
the poor was vested in the union board of guardians, the
maintenance of the poor should be in the unions. The ab-
sence of a wider area of rating in the metropolis was to
throw the burthen of the support of the poor on the poor.
In his opinion, the present law of settlement exercised a
very considerable influence on the strikes in the building
trades, as the men complained that they were not able to
get residences near their places of work, and they were
away from their homes at least 14 hours a day. He felt
bound to support the clause.
Sir J. TROLLOPE said that this was the first time he
had ever heard that the poor laws had anything to do with
the strikes in the building trade. He hoped, after the argu-
ments that had been advanced against the clause, that the
President of the Poor Law Board would not press it.
After some further discussion the house divided—
For the clause 127
Against it
Majority —B3
The clause was accordingly agreed to.
The other clauses were also agreed to.
Mr. AYRTON moved the addition of a clause to the
effect that the bill shculd continue in force for a pe-
riod of five years, which he stated would give full time to
test the efficiency of the measure, and enable them to re-
trace their steps.
After a short discussion the motion was negatived with-
out a division.
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the house re-
sumed.
REMOVAL OF SCOTCH AND IRISH POOR BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, and some
discussion arose on the Ist clause, which, however, was
agreed to.
Some other clauses, with verbal amendments, were
agreed to.
The sitting was then suspended at 4 o'clock.
The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
THE GALWAY CONTRACT.

Mr. CONINGHAM presented a petition from Mr. J.
O'Malley Irwin, containing various allegations with respect
to the conduct of Mr. Lever and other officials of the Royal
Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, which he began to
read.

Mr. ROEBUCK rose to order. He wished to know
whether it was consistent with the rules of the house to
read a libel against individuals in the form of a petition.
The SPEAKER said that the hon. member was in order.
Mr. CONINGHAM stated the substance of the state-
ments in the petition, which concluded with the prayer that
inquiry might be made into the frauds cummitied by the
officials and manager of the company upon the Government
and the public, and with the assertion that the petitioner
would be prepared to substantiate his allegations.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the petition be not received,
and asked whether he was in order in making the motion.
The SPEAKER said that any petition brought before the
house was generally received upon the responsibility of the
member presenting it, and upon his authority the house
presumed that it contained no offensive matter, or matter

which ought not to be received according to the rules of

the house. If any objection was made to the petition the
proper course was to have it read by the clerk at the table,
in order that the house might know what it contained.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Then I move that it be read by the
clerk.

The petition was accordingly read by the clerk at the
table. It contained a long history of the circumstances un
der which the company had been established, and prayed
that after an inquiry had been made into frauds perpetrated
by the manager and officials of the board, the Attorney-
General might be directed to prosecute the parties to those
frauds.

On the question that the petition be laid on the table,
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that it be not received. The right
of petition was one of the most important rights possessed
by the subject, and the house ought not to allow it to be
turned to purposes of private enmity. (Hear, bear.) The
man who signed the petition had been convicted of perjury,
and had been nine months in prison in Ireland. He had
also brought actions against Mr. Lever, which had been re-
jected by the English courts of law. He hoped the house
would not allow itself to be made the instrument of the
malicious propensities of any individual, and he asserted
that the individual who had signed this petition was un-
worthy of credit.
Lord DUNKELLIN seconded the motion.
Mr. BOUVERIE said that it would have been as well if
the hon. member for Brighton had given notice to the hon,
member whose character and conduct were inculpated by
the petition before he presented it. (Hear, hear.) But as
far as he could collect, the petition itself contained nothing
which should induce the house to reject it. The house
should consider whether it would t receive such a petition
supposing the statements it contained were true ; but if
they did receive it, they were bound to ascertain whether
or not there was any foundation for the charges it con-
tained. It was the duty of a member before presenting
such a petition to ascertain the grounds on which such
charges were made, and to be prepared to substantiate
them. The hon. member, however, had not given notice of
any motion founded upon the petition. The hon. member
ought to take the earliest opportunity of laying before the
house the grounds upon which these charges had been
made, and if they turned out to be unsubstantial, as they
all hoped they might ; if it appeared that there was not
sufficient prima facie evidence to justify an hon. member in
bringing them before the house, it would be a question
whether the member who had brought them forward was
not deserving of condemnation and censure.. (Hear, hear.)

Sir J. TROLLOPE reminded the house that a committee
which had been appointed to inquire into circumstances
connected with the Atlantic Steam Navigation Company
had not yet made its report, and suggested that the petition
should be withdrawn, at all events until that report was
before the house. He stated that the petitioner had sent a
letter to a member of the committee containing many of
the charges made in the petition, but the committee had
exercised a wise discretion in refusing to enter into those
charges, as they formed no part of the matters referred to
them.

Lord DUNK ELLlN,wished to say'a few words on behalf
of his hon. colleague (Mr. Lever), who was absent. What
he knew of the gentleman who had signed the petition
would make him very cautious and suspicious in giving
credit to any of the statements he had made. If the house
should consider that these imputations reflecting on the
business habits, outside the house, of one of its members,
was a fitting subject for inquiry, ho would undertake on
the part of his hon, colleague that he would not shrink
sucha
d had anyidea h
explanations
u ch a petition
as
w o bed
satisfactory toesetnhteehd.ousne.e
sHupispohrotend. ctholelemagottlieonwfooulr ditshave
attended
giving p
from
ifhe
e t
een
have b
re-
jection, because he thought it had been presented 'in a way
which was not calculated to do credit to the house,. and he
very much regretted that no notice of it had been
given to
the parties concerned.
Sir G. GREY said that when a petition of this nature
was about to be presented to the house it was usual to give
to the hon. member whose conduct was Complained of notice
of such intention, in order that he might have an opportu-
nity of being present and meeting the charges contained in
the petition. He thought that, under the circumstance of
theno nhootni c. emhaving
fboere n givenßrighton to the
jlf
rh. o n.
eo ning memberhar
nf rwGoaullwday,
do
well to withdraw the petition, and, if he should think fit
to give notice to the hon. member for Galway, to present it
at a future time. (No, no—reject it.) The hon. and
learned member for Sheffield had stated that the petition
contained matter which was libellous ; now the charges in
the petition might be utterly groundless or they might be
true ; but on neither ground ought the house to reject the
petition, nor ought the house to reject the petition because
the hon. member was not prepared to substantiate the
charges. Under all the circumstances of the case, ho
thought the hon. member ought not to have presented the
petition, but having done so he hoped he would not, press it
u 1304 tll9 Irmo rithole giTiPs th 9 UPIZi ram* Or Qlll-

way notice of it, in order that he might at the earliest mo-
ment have an opportunity of meeting the charges against
him. The house ought not now to lay down a precedent by
rejecting the petition because it contained libellous matter.
(Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI said it would be well for the country to
understand that the presentation of petitions to that house
was not a matter of course. It was one of their great privi-
leges, but it ought to be understood that the house had the
power of recepti9n or rejection of any petition. There might
be good grounds for refusing to receive a petition. Some

grounds might arise from the matter of the document which
might be libellous and utterly untrue and unfounded. It
was the duty of the house to listen to the charges which
were made against any one of its members, and it would
no doubt be the wish of the member himself that 110 obsta-
cle should be thrown in the way of having those charges
fully inquired into. The petition now presented contained

grave matters against an hon. member, and no notice had
been given to him that his conduct would be impugned.
But it was impossible to shut their eyes to the fact that
these matters had been under discussion for weeks in and
out of that house, and that being s,), when was the petition
presented ? Why, at the fag end of the session, when it
would be almost impossible, even if desirable, to appoint a
committee for the purpose of inquiring into the allegations
which the petition contained. He thought that would be a
course which the house ought not to sanction, for the peti-
tion was not of that bone
.fide and genuine character which
petitions ought to bear. (Hear.) He trusted the hon. and
learned member who had so properly called attention to the
petition would be contented with the suggestion which had
been made that the petition should be withdrawn. That
course would show the sense of the house at this time that
a petition containing such grave charges had been
brought before the house, and that there had been a want
of the usual courtesies which attended such a proceeding,
and that it had been presented under circumstances which
were full of suspicion. He would not condescend to go into
the character of the petitioner. It was enough for him that
the petition was not respectful to the house, and that the
course which the petitioner had pursued ought not to be
encouraged. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GREGORY, as chairman to the committee to which
some allusion had been made, wished to observe that an
application was made by the petitioner to be examined
before the committee, and he wrote a letter containing
certain allegations against the company. The committee,
on looking at the terms of reference of the subject they had
to consider, thought it would be out of place to examine
the petitioner, and they refused to enter into the allega-
tions. He thought the house ought to mark its strong
sense of the course which had been pursued by the hon.
member for Brighton. The house ought to remember the
position in which it stood. If any hon, member would come
forward and make himself the vehicle of having published
libel and slander, the character of any member might be
affected by any person, no matter how low his position might
be in society, and the fair fame of the member would be in-
jured by such a proceeding. (Hear.) These allegations
would go forth to the world ; the member would be gib-
beted before the public, and at the same time the allega-
tions might be entirely groundless and false, yet the charges
would go forth in the newspapers, and do the hon. member
considerable damage. He thought the house ought to mark
its strong sense of the manner in which this petition had
been presented to them. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said if there were one privilege
or right which the people prized more than another, it was
the right of petition. (Hear, hear.) But it was a right
which should be properly used and not abused. He knew
nothing of the hon. member against whom the petition was
presented. But if the house received the petition they
would constitute themselves into a species of grand jury,
and they would find a true bill without giving the hon.
member an opportunity of inquiry into his conduct. The
petition contained serious charges against the hon. member
for Galway, and it asked the house to instruct the Attorney-
General to prosecute him for these matters. (Hear, hear.)
Now, if that hon. member had been guilty of the frauds im -
puted, or this misconduct, that would not be the course
which the house would pursue. It would not instruct the
Attorney-General, but it would expel the member—expul-
sion would be the proper course for such misconduct. He
could not understand how it was that the hon, member for
Brighton had presented this petition without first giving
notice of his intention to do so. (Hear, hear.) He would
not go into the question whether the petition was libellous
or not, or whether the allegations were true or not, it ought
not to have been presented, but having been presented sim-
ple withdrawal would not satisfy the justice of the case.
The petition ought to be rejected altogether at the present

moment. If the hon. member_ should bring it forward at a
future time, let him bring forward a petition properly
worded, and give no' ice to the member charged ; and if the
charges were true, let the member be expelled from the
house. (Hear, hear.)
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said a committee sat last year to
consider the facts in reference to the Galway contract, and
they reported all the evidence to the house, leaving the
house to express an opinion upon that evidence. The house
abstained from doing so. It could not be said that these
matters were now brought forward for the first time. The
hon. member for Brighton had not thought fit to take a
course which was open to him, and it was hardly fair to the
house that charges of this sort should be introduced in a
petition. Tf they were worthy of attention, they should be

brought forward by the hon. member in the usual manner.
Lord PALMERSTON said it seemed to him that this was
a matter which involved two questions—the privileges of
the house, and the duties of hon. members. He could not
admit that if a petition contained grave charges against a
member—or it might be libellous charges—that it should
not be received. On the contrary, if a member were said to
be guilty of any act which was disgraceful to himself or
unbecoming to him as a member of Parliament, it was for
his interest that the charges should be inquired into.
(Hear, hear.) It was one of the essential privileges that the
subject should petition Parliament upon any matter on
which any individual might think it desirable that his
opinions should be submitted to the house; but he did not
think that any member was to be bound to present any
petition which was given to him. (Hear, hear.) No man
had a right to insist upon tha presentation of any petition,
and it was the duty of the member to whom the petition
was given to ascertain by inquiry that the matter of the
petition was fit to be laid before Parliament. If a petition
inculpated the conduct of any member it was the duty of
the person presenting the petition in the first place to sa-
tisfy himself by inquiry that there was a prime facie ground
for the imputations made, and if he did not find that to be
the case he should return the petition to the person from
whom it came ; but if there were sufficient grounds for pre-
senting the petition, then it would be the bounden duty of
the hon. member to give notice to the member charged that
on a certain day he would present such a petition to the
house, and give him the opportunity of being present to
state what answer he could make to the allegations con-
tained in the petition. It appeared to him that the hon.
member for Brighton had not, so far as his statement went,
fulfilled any of these duties. (Hear, hear.) He had not

stated to the house that he had examined into the charges
made, or satisfied himself that there was a prima facie
ground for them, nor did it appear that ha had given the
member for Galway notice that he should present this peti-
tion, and therefore it seemed to him (Lcrd Palmerston)
that the hon.. member would do well to take the petition
back. If upon inquiry the matter of the petition was such
that the honour of the house was involved in the conduct
of the member for Galway, the hon. member for Brighton
would have another opportunity on a future occasion of
bringing it forward ; and he would, in the meantime, give
notice of that fact to the member for Galway, in order that
he might be present to answer the charges of the petitioner.
At present he thought the house ought not to take any
further steps on the petition, but allow it to be withdrawn.
(Hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM admitted that in compliance with

the wish of the house ho would withdraw the petition. The
hon. and learned member for Sheffield was the last person
in the world to complain of a libellous attack being made on
any person, for no member of that house had made so many
personal attacks on members as he had done. (Hear, hear.)
To the noble lord who had reflected on his conduct of yes-

terday, he would say that he claimed the right to make in-
quiries into the conduct of the gallant officer alluded to.
(Question.) That was the question. He was replying to an
attack on himself. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for
Galway county (Mr. Gregory) said that by bringing this
libellous petition before the house he was doing a serious
injury to the character and reputation of the member for
Galway (Mr. Lever), and upon that ground it was proposed
to reject the petition. Now he (Mr. Coningham) would
venture to say that if he were attacked in this manner, so
far from avoiding publicity, ho would wish that the whole
of the charges in detail should be inquired into. (Hear,
hear.) He had no personal knowledge of the petitioner,
and he only saw the petition about half an hour before pre-
senting it. He found the member for Galway (Mr. Lever)
was absent from London, but he also found that the peti•
tioner had appealed to the committee to be heard, and that
they had rejected his demand to be examined upon the sub-
ject of the petition ; and he also understood that the investi-
gation of the committee was drawing to a close, and would
in fact terminate immediately. It, therefore, appeared to
him to be a case of urgency. (Hear, hear.) He had no
motive but that of the public interest in the matter, and
if they would look back at what had taken place in
reference to this contract, he thought they would see
that there was a prima facie case for the petition. He
would maintain that the presentation of this petition was
likely to be conducive to public good, and that it was for
the interest of the house that it should be referred to the
select committee, and that it should be printed. In com-
pliance, however, with the wish of the house, he was will.
ing to withdraw it, and he would leave the matter in the
hands of the house.

Sir J. FERSUSSON said that having been the subject
of an attack of a similar nature to the present in the last,
session of Parliament, he wished to observe that the hon.
members who were addressed on the personal charges
against his character immediately informed him of them ;
and having disregarded then for some time, he in the end
prosecuted the libeller, and convicted him of the crime. The
hon. member had not told the house what means he took to
inform the member for Galway of the charges against him.
In this respect the hon. member's conduct had been very
tualike that of the hou,membtre whq last year gaie hta

the earliest information of the charges made against him
(Sir J. Fergusson). (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CRAWFORD said that having acquired some infor-
mation of Mr. Irwan's peculiarities, and other circumstances
connected with him, he should have no hesitation in voting
with the hon. and learned member for Sheffield that the
petition be not received by the house.
Sir F. BARING said if the petition was not to be with-
drawn he should move the adjournment of the debate, be-
cause he did not think there was any just ground for reject-
ing it. Whether they believed or did not believe the
charges contained in the petition was no reason why they
should not listen to them. He should not have spoken but
for the remarks of the hon. member for London, who had
come to a different conclusion to himself. The prayer of
the petition was that the petitioner might be heard before
the committee which had been selected for the purpose of
looking into these transactions, and he did not make a
voluntary charge against any member of that house. Now,
rightly or wrongly, the petitioner thought he had good
grounds and a right to be heard by the committee, and the
house ought to pause before they rejected the petition.
(Hear.) He should be sorry to see the house reject the
petition.
Lord J. RUSSELL said there were two questions which
hon. members seemed to confound, namely, the reception
of the petition, and what should be done with it on its re-
ception. It was one thing to instruct the Attorney-Gene -
ral to prosecute, which the house would not do, and another
to deny to the subject the right of petitioning against any
member of that house. He must say that the hon. member
for Brighton had not accounted in a satisfactory manner for
the mode in which he had introduced a petition containing
such grave financial charges. Still he must assert the right
of the subject to petition.
The SPEAKER intimated that the petition could not be
withdrawn unless the hon. and learned member for Sheffield
withdrew his amendment.
Mr. ROEBUCK—I will not.

Mr. HOPE pointed out that the petition contained mat-
ter entirely different from that which had been referred to
the committee. The inquiries of the committee were con-
fined entirely to the question of the money promised to
Messrs. Holmes and Irwan in case they could obtain a sub-
sidy. The committee looked on that transaction with great
suspicion, but on the whole thinking that the contract had
passed into other hands it was unnecessary to pursue the
subject further.

The house divided—
For the reception of the petition B4
For the amendment! 75-9

After a few words from Mr. BRADY,
Mr. CONINGHAM withdrew the petition.
POST-OFFICE.

Sir G. BOWYER gave notice that on Thursday next he
should present a petition from 1,500 persons in the Post-
office, praying for inquiry into the management of that de-
partment.