The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-20 00:00:00

NEW WRIT.

On the mcron of Mr. H. BAILLIE a new writ was
ordered for the county of Selkirk, in the room of Mr. A. E.
Lockhart, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.

INLAND REVENUE BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. W. MARTIN moved that it be an instruction to the
committee that they should have power to divide the bill
into two or more bills.
_ _ _

Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the motion, and said he
considered the bill as a sequel to the Consolidated Supply
Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He contended
that the latter measure should have been divided into three
bills, in conformity with the spirit and practice of Parlia-
mentary proceedings. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had shown great dexterity in regard to this bill now before
the house. In the Consolidated Supply Bill he forced
through the principles of the charges proposed in taxation,
and he had reserved for this bill the details that were neces-
sary to give effect to the carrying out of the alterations
introduced. Direct taxation was odious, but it was when
it came to be enforced that its objectionable character became
apparent. He believed some of the provisions of this bill were
unnecessary, and he called on the house to show that they
would not assent to the innovation of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer in requiring them to legislate in the dog days on
important financial questions.

Mr. GLADSTONE said the hon. memberdid notunder-
stand, and misrepresented the nature of this bill. How-
ever, he had considered the motion of the hon. member
(Mr. Martin), and he would assent to it.
Mr. HADFIELD contended that by one of the clauses of
this bill relating to beer-houses, flood-gates of vice and
immorality would be opened for the purpose of replenish-
ing her Majesty's exchequer.
Mr. HENLEY supported the proposal for a division.

After some remarks from Sir J. FERGUSON the motion
was agreed to.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER entered
into some explanations, in the course of which he stated
that he proposed merely by this bill to obtain administrative
powers, and denied that he had introduced any fiscal novel-
ties by this measure. What he proposed was only to ex-
tend principles that were already in operation. In illustra-
tion of this he referred to the clause relating to the income-
tax, and contended that the only object proposed was to
effect a more equal distribution of that impost. With regard
to the 43d clause, to which there had been considerable ob-
jection, though he did not concur in the views
expressed by some hon. members, yet, he would aban-
don it, considering the late period of the session. Under
the circumstances he trusted the hon. member (Mr.
Hennessy) would not press his motion.

Mr. HENNESSY said that he did not think the ex-
planation of the right hon. gentleman satisfactory. He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had disclaimed having
introduced any novelty, but he contended that it was a
novelty to be required on the 19th of July to discuss im-
portant financial changes which should have been submitted
to their consideration in February last. He concluded by
moving " That this house will, upon this day three months,
resolve itself into the said committee."

The CHANCELLOR of theE X C HE QUER said the hon.
had member not made himself acquainted with the real
nature of the bill, and he trusted the house would not
accede to the motion, which would have the effect of in-
juring seriously the interests which he was desirous to
protect.

bir S. NORTHCOTE defended the course adopted by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he thought the
clauses relating to succession duty should be postponed,
and, if that course were adopted, he trusted the hon. mem-
ber (Mr. Hennessy) would not press his motion.
Mr. PHILLIPS agreed with the last speaker, and ex-
pressed a hope that the succession duty would not be
pressed.
After some further discussion, in the course of which
strong objections were made to the 44th clause,
which imposed pains and penalties of a novel character,

Mr. HENNESSY said he would withdraw his motion-if
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would omit from the bill
this clause.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was sorry he could not comply with the proposition of the
hon. member.

The house then divided—
For the motion
Against it B2
Majority
Sir J. PAKINGTON asked the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to afford the house some information relative to
certain clauses before the house went into committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he could not conveniently adopt that course, and must re-
serve his explanations until the house went into committee.
After some irregular discussion the house went into com-
mittee.
In reply to Mr. HENNESSEY,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that the object of the clause was to enable mithylated spirits
to be sold without license, which would confer considerable
benefit on the public, there being at present a 10 guinea
license imposed on this article, the use of which was ex-
tending daily.

Clauses Ito 8 inclusive were agreed to. -
Clause 9, with some modification, was also agreed to.
Clausen 10 to 14 were agreed to.
Clause 15 was postponed.

On clause 16,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
renewed the duty on race horses, and did not, as had been
feared, affect Ireland.
The clause was agreed to.
Clause 17 was also passed.

Clause 18 equalised the penalty for selling game without
an excise license, and was agreed to.
On clause 19,

Mr. HENNESSY moved an amendment, which had the
effect of restricting the power of dealing with cases of illicit
distillation to courts of petty session, consisting of two or
more magistrates, instead of one only, as proposed by the
bill.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as
amended, passed.
The following clauses to No. 37 were agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 40 were postponed, and clauses 41 to 41
were negatived.

Clauses 48 to 53 were passed, 44 and 55 were struck out,
and clause 56 agrced to.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
should proceed with the postponed clauses on Tuesdaynext.

LACE FACTORIES BILL.
The house went int) committee on this bill pro forma,
and its further consideration was postponed till Tuesday
next.

The house resumed, and the sitting was suspended at four
o'clock.

The house met again at six.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT..
Mr. CONINGB.AM presented a petition from Mr. G.
V. Malley Irwin, similar to the one he had presented the
other night, with the exception that the petition asked for
an investigation instead of a prosecution by the Attorney-
General. He believed he was expected to express an opi-
nion upon the petition, and he had no hesitation in saying
that he thought there were prima facie grounds for the in-
vestigation. Should a discussion arise respecting the peti-
tion he was fully prepared to state the grounds on which he
thought an investigation necessary. The hon. gentleman
concluded by moving that the petition be read.
Thepetition was accordingly read by the clerk at the table.
The petitioner described himself as the projector of the
Royal Atlantic Steam Navigation Company, and charged
Mr. Lever and the officials connected with the company
with false and fraudulent pretences and practices ; he stated
that he was prepared to substantiate his allegations, and
prayed that an inquiry might be made into the fraudulent
practices which had been committed.
Mr. Upon
ot the
v E questionßE thatrose theto
petition
order.
It
wdo lie
theas onthe
practicet b table,
charges were brought against any hon. member tohear hen
that
hon. member, if he wished to make any remarks, before
taking any futther step.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Sowu motion ought to be made before
themembci is heard.

The SPEAKER—The question is, that the petition do
lie upon the table.

Mr. LEVER, who was loudly called for, then rose and
requested the permission of the house to state distinctly and
emphatically that there was not the slightest foundation
for “ gips%) allogAti9A Pctitiou, (Hm) jr.)n 1()

would not occupy the house with a detailed ex parte state-
ment, but he was most anxious for the fullest investigation
into the matter, and he regretted that the investigation
could not take place in a court of law, in order that he
might have the opportunity of prosecuting the authors of
the mis-statements which had been publicly paraded
through the country by means of this gentleman or this
man. (Cheers.) An action had been tried some time ago
at an expense of some hundreds of pounds to him (Mr.
Lever), and Mr. Irwin was now passing through the Insol-
vent Court on account of the expenses of that action, as he
had not a shilling in the world. It was not right that he
should be continually ennoyed by a man without character.
He had documents with him which would establish the
truth of his statements, but he thought the fairest course
would be to appoint a committee of inquiry. He should,
therefore, move that a committee of inquiry be appointed.
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. CONINGHAM said that the other night Mr. Irwin
was"charged with forgery, but he had appealed from hio
conviction, and the question was still under consideration.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Hear, hear I Nine months in gaol.
Lord J. MANNERS rose to move that the petition be
referred to a select committee.

Mr. ROEBUCK—If a committee is appointer], it ought
to be directed to inquire, in the first place, whether the
matter contained in the petition is of such a nature that the
house ought to take cognisance of it. Would the house
toke notice of it if it referred to the hon. member for
Galway in his private capacity ? I say that the accusation
comes from a man who has been convicted of forgery. To
telt me that the question of his guilt or innocence is still
under discussion is utterly futile and false. The trial was
in 1835, and the man lay nine months in gaol as a convict.
Mr. CONINGHAM—He appealed.

Mr. ROEBUCK—Appealedin 1835. We all know the
meaning of that phrase. The man is a convict forger. He
has brought actions against my hon. friend, he has been cast
in them, and he is going through the court because he is un-
able to pay the costs. The whole matter is sub-judice, and
it would be unworthy of the house to sow broadcast the
accusations contained in this petition. The hon. member
for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) has not even stated that ho
is prepared to move for an inquiry. It would be unworthy
of the house to send the petition to a committee without a
preliminary inquiry whether it contains matter into which
inquiry ought to be made.

Mr. BOUVERIE hoped the house would not in a hurry
take a course of which it might afterwards repent. The house
had betterdetermine the question now before it, namely, whe-
ther the petition should lie on the table, before considering,
what further steps should be taken, The proper course
would be, if the hou: a meant to proceed further in the mat-
ter, that the petition should be printed, and that on a sub-
sequent day, after due notice, either the hon. member for
Brighton or the hon. member for Galway should move to
refer it to a select committee. (Hear.) They might then
discuss the petition, whether or not it was a matter into
which the house ought to inquire. If this course were not
taken, they might be embarking upon an inquiry into the
private affairs of members into which they had no right to
inquire.

Lord J. RUSSELL—The course taken as yet is perfectly
regular. I quite agree with my right hon. friend (Mr.
Bouverie), that the ho use ought to take any future steps with
deliberation and caution. The hon. member for Brighton
having given notice to the hon. member whose conduct is
impugned, has regularly brought before the house a peti-
tion containing grave charges against that hon. member.
The hon. member has challenged inquiry, and he was per-
fectly right in so doing. But it is for the house to consider
first, whether this is a sort of charge which ought to be in-
quired into by the house ; and, secondly, what precedents
there may be in similar cases. I do not think anything
should be resolved on to-day further than that this petition,.
if considored at all, be printed for the use of members only..
Formerly, when petitions of this kind had been printed and
circulated, it had been justly complained that the house
was circulating libels. He saw no objection to the petition.
being allowed to lie on the table, and to be printed for the
use of members, and then any hon. member on a future day
might make a motion respecting it, being of course respon-
sible for his suggestion if he recommended an inquiry.
Mr. CLAY concurred in the suggestion of the right hon.
gentleman and the noble lord. He was glad that the hon.
member for Galway was ready and willing to meet the
charge against him, and he remarked that the fact that tho
petitioner had been convicted of forgery was not in itself a
reason for refusing an inquiry, inasmuch as the forgery hacl
been condoned by his subsequent employment by the hon..
member.

Mr. MALINS said that a petition containing charges of
fraud against an hon. member required the serious considera—
tion of the house, but considering the position of the peti—
tioner, the statements in the petition ought to be received
with the greatest caution. Before the house embarked upon
an inquiry into the conduct of any one of its members., it
ought to be considered whether such conduct could be in,
quired into by any tribunals of the country. If the charges
were of a civil Gr criminal nature, the petitioner could pm..
teed in the courts of law or equity in England or Ireland ;
and if the charges were substantiat3d, it would then be for
the house to consider whether the hon. member should be
expelled or not, as in the case of James Sadleir. Suppose
the petition were read, and ordered to be referred to a select
committee, in what capacity were the members of the com-
'owe° to act P (Hear.) Were they to act on the same as
judges in the courts of law or equity ? If so, then he would
merely say the ordinary tribunals were open to the peti-
tioner. For this house to enter upon an investigation of
this kind would be going far beyond their jurisdiction, and
would be a course fraught with great inconvenience and
danger.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE said he thought the hon. member
for Hull (Mr. Clay) had, in taking notice of something said
about the character of the petitioner, stated that the hon.
member for Galway was not in a position to refer to the
charge of forgery, because he had, by employing Mr. Irwin,
condoned that crime. It was not fair towards the hon. mem-
ber to make that observation, and he rose to claim fair play-
for him in this matter. The house would not act upon the
statements of the hon. members for Galway and Sheffield,,,
but upon the statements of the petitioner made in the courts
of law and before a select committee of the house, and it
appeared that when the hon, member for Galway made the
acquaintance of the petitioner he was utterly ignorant that
he had been convicted of forgery or of his antecedents.
(Hear, hear.)

Mr. CLAY rose to explain, and also to express his regret.
The observation which he made was addressed to the hon.
member for Sheffield, who had stated that the petitioner
was unworthy of their notice because his character was bad.
He did not wish to state anything unfairly against the hon.
member for Galway, or to prejudge the question.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said it was hardly necessary that
the house should dwell longer upon the matter, and he
thought it was the wish of the house to pursue the course
pointed out by the right hon. gentleman the member for
Kilmarnock.

Mr. PAUL L
a to im that
they
the
oughthou s shouldteobe
not give notoriety itt seemedhisto h
petition,and
ex-
tremely jealous before they consented to assist the petitioner
said
in making these charges against an hon. member. The
house had heard sufficient of the allegations, and they
ought not to encourage such persons as the petitioner to
come before them, but leave him to the proper tribunals of
the country. He begged to move that the petition be re-
jected, because he thought the matter ought not to go further.,
Col. FRENCH thought that if the petition was to b©
printed, the usual course should be followed of giving notice
or leaving the matter to the committee on printing. He saw
no reason why they should depart from their rules.
Mr. PAULL rose to explain, but was met with loud cries
of " spoke" and " order," and consequently he resumed hie
seat.
The house divided—

Ayes
Noes
Majority —2l
The petition was then ordered to be laid on the table.

the petition,
nsda said hoha
dhad
donetw iscoe, votednetbe
aftoon
Ber
case, but ho
opinion of the petition, and still less as
of hithsheerhaeoel
atiogno
good
petition of
t a .
re-
ceiving petitions, to shut their doors agaiiis
felt that it was impossible,
s an immunity which
this kind, and thus give to memberuear,
on the general. principle
hear.) Having
other persons did not possess. (
voted for the reception of the
petition petition,emhbeer mpirgehstenntoewd
state that he thought, before a
a ground for the allega-
in
of this kind he ought, to a certain extent, satisfy
himself that there was prima facie
tions contained it. He wished to know whether the hon.
member for Brighton was prepared to follow up this matter
by inquired
Tmhoevins*PgEtAhicatEthße—alTlehgaethioonsn.omf
etmhbeepretoiutigohnt
tboehave
con-
into ?
eluded his inquiries with a motion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CONINGTIAM said it had been his intention to
move fora select committee to inquire into the matter of the
petition, and he would now give notice that he would do so
on a future day.
The SPEAKER—This is a
question of privilege, and,
therefore, it is competent for the hon, member now to move
that the petition be printed. The course pursued in cases
analogous to this is, that without notice, a motion may at
once be made that the petition be printed, and for the use of
members only.
Mr. CONINGIIAIVI then moved that the petition be
printed for the use of members only,.
Colonel FRENCH would not oppose the printing of the
petition, if it were distinctly understood that the hon. mem-
ber would found a motion upon it. (Hear.)
Captain JERVIS thought that something should be said
for those who had voted against the reception of the petition,
beet use it had been stated out of doors that the house wished
to cover an hon. member from any inquiry into his conduct.
It was perfectly well understood that the house could reject
a petition. He did not see why they shcuild receive a peti-
tion which was presented against a member, but which they
would not receive if presented against a private individual.
If the petition had not been presented against the hon. mem-
ber for Galway, and directed against the Galway contract,
the house would not have heard a word about it. It was an
attempt on the part of those who disliked that contract, and
wished to get rid of it—(hear, hear)—to bring
the matter
under the notice of the house.
bsery
Mr. CONINGHAM begged to say that if those observa-
tions tions were directed against him, he 'would give them th
moat cli§tihet and emphatic ccntraaici on, Tic j? sad no per

Bond interest in the Galway contract. Fle had merely
brought the petition forward on public grounds, and because
he had a right to present it. (Hear, hear.) On Monday
next he would move that the petition be referred to a select
committee.
Mr. HOPE said that as reference had been made to the
Galway contract, he would only state that as a member of
the committee, the view which he took was favourable to
the continuance of the contract, and he would remind his
hon. friend the member for Harwich (Captain Jervis) that
he made several motions for that purpose, but they were
not acceded to by the committee. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. B. COCHRANE, which were
inaudible in the gallery,
Motion agreed to ; petition ordered to be printed.
NEW SOUTH WALES.
Mr. MARSH asked the Under-Secretary of State for the
Colonies if any petition to her Majesty had been received
from the inhabitants of the district of the Clarence and
Richmond rivers, praying for separation from the colony of
New South Wales.
Mr. C. FORTESCTJE said that the petition was on its
pay, and was expected to be received in a few days.
THAMES EMBANKMENT.

THE PENSIONS (BRITISH FORCES) INDIA