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

ADMIRAL ELLIOTT.

The Duke of SOMERSET said with respect to the
statement that had been made in that house last night, he
regretted that such a circumstance should have occurred
during his absence. He was informed that the noble lord
had made remarks affecting him and Admiral Elliott. He
could only say he had nothing to retract, and therefore he
adhered to his statement. Foreign officers often applied for
permission to inspect English dockyards, and such permis-
sionwas always granted. In a few days after one of these
visits he saw an article in the Ilioniteur, or some other
continental newspaper, warning the French that our pro-
gress was dangerous. He must say it would be very em-
barassing to the friendly relations between the two
countries.

The Earl of HARD WICKE was sorry to hear the sub-
ject revived again. His only object was to defend the cha-
racter of a brother officer. With respect to the adminis-
tration of the naval affairs of England, it behoved the noble
duke to be energetic in his competition with the French
Government. They had twenty-six of these iron plated
ships in preparation— England had but six or seven, and
it was necessary that we should have as great a force as
that country. It was true the speech of the noble duke
the other evening was the speech of a statesman, but it was
that of a slow statesman. He thought he ought to go on
a little faster if he really wished to beat his powerful com-
petitor.

Lord BROUGHAM bore his testimony to the fact that the
speech of the noble duke contained nothing injurious to the
honour of Admiral Elliott. He renewed the warnings he
had previqusly given of keeping the nation well armed.
The Earl of SHREWSBURY said Admiral Elliott, in
what he had done, had done nothing more than any other
private individual would have done who Went out without
any Government directions.

The Duke of SOMERSET could only repeat his regret
at what Admiral Elliott had done. It was a very different
thing to relate the result of his visit to a private friend
and to tell it to an ex-First Lord of the Admiralty, with
the view of it being stated on authority in the House of
Commons. The bad effect of the course was to be seen at
once on the other side of the water. In the discussion in the
Corps Legislatif the reflection was already apparent. The
noble lord seemed now to be urging him to build nothing but
iron ships. A short time ago he was urgently demanding
wooden ships of the Admiralty, yet the Admiralty was
accused of vacillation. He must leave the noble earl to de •
tide on which side the vacillation existed. (Laughter.)

The subject then dropped.
PUBLIC OFFICES EXTENSION BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL.
This bill passed through committee.

BOROUGH OF DUBLIN B ILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.

BURFORD'S CHARITIES BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
READING CHARITIES BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
TEMPLE BALSALL HOSPITAL BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
GUILDFORD HOSPITAL BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the Banbridge Extension
Railway Bill were considered and agreed to. The Bur-
ton-upon-Trent Water Bill and Llanidfoes and Newtown
Railway Bill were read a second time.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Cleveland Railway, Cork and Macroom Direct Railway,
East Suffolk Railway, Kilkenny Junction Railway, Much
Wenlock, &c., Railway, Sittingbourne and Sheerness
Railway, and West Midland and Severn Valley Railway
Companies.
TIIE GALWAY SUBSIDY.

Several petitions were presented from different parts of
Ireland in favour of the restoration of the Galway packet
subsidy.
THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
Lord W. LENNOX gave notice that on going into com-
mittee on the civil service estimates he would draw atten-
tion to the recent alterations in the National Gallery at
Trafalgar-square.

BRITISH SUBJECTS BORN IN INDIA.
Colonel SYKES gave notice that on Tuesday next he
would present a petition from British subjects born in
India, complaining of grievances
THE GREAT EASTERN.
Admiral DUNCOMBE asked the Secretary to the Ad-
miralty, if the Admiralty had taken up the Great Eastern
for the conveyance of troops to Canada; if so, at what rate
per ton; how many soldiers are to embark in her; and if
their being sent in that ship was with the concurrence of
the Secretary of State for War ?
Lord C. PAGET said that the Government had made a
contract with the owners of the Great Eastern for the con-
veyance of a certain number of troops and horses to
Quebec. The number consisted of 89 officers, 2,007 men,
and 222 horses, and the rate of payment was £lB per head
for officers, £2O for horses, and 10s. for privates.
CONVICT PRISONS IN IRELAND.

In answer to Mr. MAGUIRE,
Mr. CARDWELL said that, from the improved state of
convict prisons in Ireland, it was not intended to fill up the
vacancy in the Board of Directors of Convict Prisons.
POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
Sir A. AGNE W asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government
to extend the accommodation contemplated under the Post-
office Savings Banks Act to all parts of the United King-
dom; and whether the Postmaster-General was prepared
to receive applications from private parties interested in the
establishment of savings banks in particular localities.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the bill would extend to the three parts of the United
Kingdom. The object of the Postmaster-General was to
grant post-office accommodation in those places where it
was most required. The Postmaster-General would make
selections of those districts, in order to give a fair trial to,
the system previous to its general adoption, and he would
look more particularly to the more wealthy and populous
places. He trusted gentlemen of local knowledge and in-
fluence would give the Postmaster-General all the assist-
ance in their power by furnishing him with information.
DOVER HARBOUR.

Mr. DEEDES asked tho President of the Board of
Trade if it was his intention in the Harbours Bill to adhere
to the constitution of the board now governing Dover Har-
bour, as provided for in the bill ?
Mr. M. GIBSON said the bill on this subject would be
proceeded v ith on the day sitting on Tuesday nest.
THE HIGHWAYS BILL.

In reply to questions,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that if it was considered by hon.
members that proceeding with this bill on a day sitting on
Friday would not be fulfilling the promise made for appro-
priating a day for it, he would not press that arrangement,
and he would substitute the London Corporation Coal Bill
for consideration that day.
THE GALWAY SUBSIDY.

In reply to Col. FRENCH,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
it was not usual for Government to apply to the law officers
of thee point Crown
rdTtoheter
postmas-General considered
contracts, except when there was
m
that no such point had arisen in reference to the Galway
Packet Company, and therefore did not apply to the law
so
officers for advice.
Zvi no
rveegd. a

THE APPROPRIATION OF THE VACANT
SEATS.
In reply to Mr. DUNCOMBE,

Sir G. LEWIS said that the bill for the appropriation of
the vacant seats would be proceeded with, and Government
would then state what course they intended to pursue.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then gave notice that he would
move that writs be issued for members to serve in Parlia-
ment for Gloucester and Wakefield.

THE GALWAY SUBSIDY.
Mr. GREGORY moved for a select committee to inquire
into the circamtanco attending the tenninati94 by the

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

money for carrying out the contract, but that they were not
prepared to recommend the house to take such a course.
Everybody who knew all the circumstances that had oc-
curred. however, was perfectly certain that the vote for the
Galway Company was trembling in the balance. (Hear.)
The company did not know what course the house would
take. All would depend upon the course adopted by the
Government ; and it was understood that the animus of the
Government was hostile to the contract. On June 22 the
doubts which the company entertained were considerably
strengthened by a letter which was addressed to them by
the Treasury, and in which there occurred the following
passage Under these circumstances it is impossible fcr
their lordships to foretell what may be the decision of par-
liament, or until the final report of the committee is made,
what course the Government may think it their duty to
adopt." It was not, in short, till the 9th of August—in
other words, till after the lapse of 16 months from the time
the contract was agreed upon—that it was approved by the
House of Commons. (Hear.) And now what was the posi-
tion of the company at this crisis? What would be the posi-
tion of any company in the world with an undertaking on its
hands of such magnitude, and with contracts pending to the
amount of nearly half a million of money, if all its hopes
were thus left in suspense for sixteen months? (Hear.)
What power would it have o% er its shareholders or over its
contractors ? (Hear, hear.) If lathes had been committed
the fault was owing to the position in which the company
had been placed by the House of Commons, and the house
ought, therefore, to take a liberal view of the case, and give
the company the benefit of every doubt. (Cheers.)
Evety accusation that could be raked up against the com-
pany was brought forward, and he was bound to say some
very unfortunate transactions were brought to light, but
which involved none of the shareholders or of the present
directors. In June, 1860, although the contract had not
been sanctioned, the company determined to put their
ships afloat. They were afraid that, if they did not, oppor-
tunities would be taken by their opponents to make
charges, by means of which an unfavourable impression
would be produced on the committee, and induce them to make
a report unfavourable to the company. They accordingly
commenced service two months before the contract was
actually granted, at a time when they were recommended
by the Treasury to do so. That fact was not in writing, but
he thought it could be sufficiently proved before a committee
of the house—(hear, hear)—and that, even although the
Treasury had then no power to pay them money. He
would now refer to another branch of the transaction—the
Newfoundland contract. He was under some difficulty in
considering this particular matter, because he found that
yesterday a reply had been sent by the Postmaster-General
to the statement of the directors, in which they had alleged
as a grievance with regard to this Newfoundland
contract, that the Postmaster-General had forced
the company to give up their colonial subsidy whilst
they kept them to the duty of carrying the mails to St.
John's. Now, the house would bear in mind there we s
a letter published by Mr. Brady on this subject. But in
spite of Mr. Brady, and in spite of every written document
which was published on this subject, the carrying of the
mail to St. John's was forced on the company. This pistol
—or rather double-barrelled pistol—was held to the head of
the company because the Postmaster-General forced them
to carry the mails to St. John's after the withdrawal of the
colonial subsidy. The Postmaster-General met them at this
point, and said, no such thing—the contract for carrying
the mails, which was' only for one year, had terminated.
To this statement he (Mr. Gregory) had only to say that it
was incorrect. The contract was made in the first instance
to carry the mails for one year ; but it was continued for
five years, if the colonial legislature consented ; and the
local legislature of Newfoundland did consent. (Hear.)
This was a most important point, because it was this New-
foundland service which impoverished the company, and
laid the foundation for its final breaking up. Into this
subject he would not go further, but would leave it to the
decision of the committee. He would merely add that it
was alleged that the company had been subjected to pains
and penalties merely because they had strictly carried out
what the Postmaster-General considered to be the letter
of the agreement, and that being under a threat all the
time of having their contract broken up, the company were
forced to accept this condition. In October, 1860, the
company applied to the Postmaster-General fora postpone-
ment. That was the first proposal on the part of the com-
pany. They proposed to postpone the carrying out the
contract till March, 1861, That proposal was accom-
panied by a request that the Prince Albert might
be accepted for temporary service until another vessel was
ready. That request was refused. On the 12th December,
1860, the company wrote, asking fer further indulgence, and
that the time should be extended from March to June, 1861.
And here he must allude to the circumstance that the Post-
master-General in his letter said that on the 26th of March,
1861, the company had not a single vessel capable of per-
forming the service of the company. But on the 26th of
March the company possessed one of the finest vessels in the
world capable of carrying the mails—the Adriatic. (Hear,
hear.) The Adriatic had been already employed by
the Cunard Company, and the directors applied to the
Postmaster-General to allow her to start without being in-
spected by one of the surveyors of the Admiralty. That
request was refused. Now, though no doubt it was per-
fectly right that vessels should be inspected, he thought the
Postmaster-General might have extended to the Adriatic
under the circumstances some liberty in the matter. But
all these points might now be thrown aside, because for
almost every one of these concessions the company had been
compelled to pay—to use a vulgar phrase—through the nose,
to the extent of £B,OOO. It had been generally supposed
that the company had received a very large sum of money for
doing nothing all this time. But he must assure the house
that the company had received no money whatever, except
for services actually rendered, to the amount of £14,000
odd. No doubt there had been irregularities ; no doubt also
concessions had been granted by the Postmaster-General.
But the company had been fined over and over again, and
where the fines had been exacted it ought to be considered
that condonation had taken place. (Hear, hear.) On the
7th May the company, in consequence of not having a vessel
of their own, engaged the Parana, a vessel which in tonnage,
horse power, &c., fully answered the requirements of the
Admiralty. Her speed had been proved on former occa-
sions, for once she had made the passage to Boston
in one day and several hours ttss than the time
required, and she had returned in an even shorter
period. Therefore, the Parana was a vessel perfectly cal-
culated to fulfil the terms of the contract. Now, by the
terms of the contract of the 21st of April, 1859, the com-
pany were bound to keep seaworthy and efficient vessels ;
but they were to be subject to the approval of the Board of
Admiralty. Lord Stanley of Alderley refused the Parana,
on the ground that the Admiralty surveyor had stated she
would not be able to carry the snails to St. John's in six
days. Now, here lay the point. By the new contract provi-
sions were made that the company should take the mails to
St. John's, but no time whatever was stipulated for taking
them to St. John's, although a time was fixed for their
going to Boston, which stipulation the company efficiently
carried out. (Hear.) There were no time tables for St.
John's, and no provisions for the delivery of the mails.
Therefore when the noble I,rd said ho was guided by the
Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, the Lords Com-
missioners, though they could not say the ship was not
competent to carry the mails to Boston, said she was not
competent to carry them in six days to St. John's, and they
said the Parana could not go. Was this a fair and proper
course for the Government to take this advantage of the
company when the Postmaster-General had no means of
knowing whether a vessel could perform the voyage or not ?
He (Mr. Gregory) had felt much obliged to the hon. gen-
tleman for the answer he gave him yesterday. Ho (Mr.
Gregory) wished to know what were the penalties which
had been imposed upon other companies, whether any in-
dulgences had been extended to other companies, and par-
ticularly to the company of Sir Samuel Cunard. But whilst
the Government was heaping and imposing all these penal-
ties upon the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, what
were the penalties to which the Cunard Company was
liable ? The only penalty which could be imposed upon
that highly subsidised company was a fine of £lOO for not
having a ship ready. Nothing could be charged for over-
time; there was no power to determine the contract for
delay, and there were no time tables. But would th e
house (permit him to refer to the correspondence of
Lord Stanley of Alderley with the Cunard Com-
pany, in which that noble lord did himself great credit
for his indulgence and his immense concessions. In 1853 the
noble lord, writing of the Atlantic Royal Mail Steam Navi-
gation Company, said that the mode in which the company
had kept its contracts had been made the subject of several
complaints. The company had admitted the correctness of
the charges. After mentioning a date, he said that from
that period the company had kept to their stipulations as to
time on three occasions only, sometimes they had exceeded
it by 14 or 16 days—(hear, hear)—and on the average they
failed to keep time for four!,days on each voyage. (Hear,
hear.) During a period of from February 1850, to March
1853, the duplicates of letters sent by the mail had been re-
ceived in Liverpool before the letters themselves had arrived
at Southampton. (Hear, hear.) Then followed a remark-
able passage, in which the noble lord said, "We are sa
retias-
fied that the Atlantic Royal Mail Company has had great
difficulties to contend with, that it has made greatarl exertions
and incurred heavy expense towards providing an 111
been
treated
supply of vessels. On the other hand, it
with great indulgence, and great allowances
for the sake of its losses and of the magnitude
-se of two ships/
rests involved." These losses
which they receive is very
(Hear, hear.) " The subsidy itliuhdaaevoefbethene minatdee-
large, and.tethhdeeyrThes ed to
abandonmentthe
of public tender.
one year of the contract
North American branch
withinf
the subsidy, had rendered the
without any diminution o
He never
ear,heabere.n/Wexp
rate of payment per mileou
circumstancesl ha y have been willingare toof
opinionun d er
that, on the whole-
has een very often se-
when the company was or
mmueedh. grletater than
when was agreed on
take the service- resthweso
, it would not be fair towards the sorted that otherupuartdoi
com-
pany, at the present moment, to destroy the company, or to
inflict any penalty ; nevertheless, the public interests de-
mand that a stricter course should henceforth be adopted."
He (Mr. Gregory) could not help looking at this decision as
a great national misfortune. He would not say that the town
of Galway had received the greatest and most marked
benefit from the opening of this route. That would be a
most unfair and censurable observation. But he might re-
mind the holm that already Belfast and the north of Ire-

land had been struck with the necessity of communication
with Galway, and had considered it a matter of such vital
importance, that a line was now commenced, and would
shortly--he believed within six months—be finished, for
the purpose of connecting Galway and Belfast by steam
communication. He might also say that the south of Ire-
land had been so impressed with the necessity of having
communication with the town of Galway that a line was
sanctioned last year by Parliament to connect Limerick,
Cork, Waterford, and the south-west of Ireland, with Gal-
way, and he very much feared that the withdrawal of the
contract would make the company apply to Parliament to
be released from their engagement. In former years,
partly from the opinion of the commission which sat in
1841, and partly from the general impression that prevailed
in England, all idea of postal communication between Ire-
land and America was pooh-poohed as a foolish proposition.
Sir S. Cunard then stated that if he should be induced to
enter into such an arrangement he must have an enormous
increase of subsidy. But Sir S. Cunard had discovered the
absolute necessity to accommodate the south of Ireland,
and the consequence was that they had Cork now a port of
.all without any increase of subsidy being asked for. (Hear,
hear.) Other companies also, who were formerly of opinion
that Liverpool was the only place to be accommodated, had
now found out that Londonderry required to be accom-
modated also, and Ireland was now accommodated with
three distinct points of departure for America. Both the
north and south of Ireland owed a considerable debt of
gratitude to Galway, for they might rest perfectly assured
thatwi ton Lo
jealousyn don de r
wasry,
that it was from no love of them that Sir S. Cunard sent
hisan vesselsathey
mtiog
might
treks,
tand assured Mr. Allen
aso
sent h
h s
when
extinguished love was likely to wax faint. (Laughter and
cheers.) Well, then, with regard to this subsidy, which
amounted to £78,000 a year, let them see for a moment
what were the advantages that England derived from it.
(Hear.) Just now news from America was eagerly sought
for in every quarter ; to obtain news a few days earlier was
a matter of vital importance to those engaged in trade, and
when the Postmaster-General said the other night after all,
so far as England was concerned, the vessels might as well
be running from Queenstown, inasmuch as the Queens-
town vessels went to New York as soon as the Galway ves-
sels, the noble lord appeared quite to have forgotten the
importance of those telegraphic messages from St. John's,
that brought news four or five days later than the direct
ocean communication. (Hear, hear.) Hints had been
thrown out that there should be a line of ships touching
Ireland, and that Ireland might be satisfied with that, or
that there should be another contract submitted for compe-
tition. But he confessed, considering the hardships which
this company had suffered, and considering also the dange
that the new contract would be accepted by persons whose
only object would be to do away with this communication
between Ireland and America, he hoped the House of Com-
mons would take a just view of the question, and would extend
its indulgence to this particular company. (Hear, hear.)
Again, he thought that Galway had peculiar claims to this
favourable view of the case. Galway, as everybody knew,
was not very rich, but very large and liberal subscriptions
bad been entered into, and the Galway town commissioners
had assessed themselves to the amount of 4d. in the pound
to provide better accommodation for the port by supplying
a suitable landing-place, and the county had resolved, not
only by the resolutions of two grand juries, but also by the
Presentment Sessions, upon a tax of id. in the pound, to
improve the harbour and provide for this communication.
It was always being thrown out that Ireland was never
ready to help herself, and he wanted to show to the house
how ready the people of Galway had been in this case to
put their hands in their pockets—not very deep, it was
true ; but they had done their best, and he thought that
some consideration ought to be shown to them on that ac-
count. (Hear, hear.) While upon this point, let him refer
to a circumstance which had occurred, showing the differ-
ence with which one company was sometimes treated from
another. He referred to the course that was taken by the
last Treasury towards Ireland and towards Scotland. Last
year the harbour commissioners of Galway asked permission
of the Treasury to expend £1,200 of their harbour dues in
laying down moorings, but permission was refused, although
the effect of granting it would only have been to postpone
for six months the last instalment of the debt. Simultane-
ously with that refusal, on July 23, 1860, an act was passed
to provide for the settlement and discharge of debts due by
the commissioners of the harbour and docks of Leith. Their
debt amounted in the year 1838 to no less than £528,374,
and Heaven only knew what it amounted to in July, 1860 ;
but this immense debt contracted by the city of Edinburgh
was compromised by the Treasury on the payment of
£50,000. That was the treatment experienced on the one
side of St. George's Channel and upon the other. (Cheers.)
This was a very vast question, and he was afraid,the people
of Ireland would not look upon the decision in this case in
the light that it was intended ; he was afraid that the course
which had been pursued would add another to the many re-
sentments that were cherished in that country against Eng-
land—(cheers)--that it would be considered in that country
that that course had been adopted from a grudging envious
spirit towards any undertaking that was calculated to bring
Ireland into rivalry with Scotch or English enterprise.
(Cheers.) This might be all very erroneous and very unrea-
soning, and he was perfectly ready to acknowledge that it
was so, but those who undertook the management and go-
vernment of a country must make allowance for public sen-
timents. The House of Commons—which set up to be a
shining light to the whole world, and which was supposed
to support every measure it passed upon the solid basis of
argument and reason alone—had last year to defer to what
was called unreasoning and erroneous sentiment. The most
important provision was struck out of the Census Bill solely
in deference to what the Homo Secretary called an unreason-
ing sentiment. Though the sentiments he had described were
unreasoning and erroneous, it must still be remembered
that they were the sentiments of a large section of the people
of Ireland. He remembered an Under Secretary for Ireland
—Mr. Drummond—the man who made use of the cele-
brated expression that "property had its duties as well as
its rights," said that, "How to do it was a matter in the
goverr ment of Ireland quite of as great importance, in his
mind, as what to do." Now, he wished the Government
would take that opinion into their consideration; and they
might rely upon it that they would be no losers if the con-
tentment of the people were a gain and a success. He was
perfectly aware that her Majesty's Ministers had great dif-
ficulties to contend with—and they had the greatest of all
difficulties to contend with, which was the difficulty arising
from the ignorance of "how to do it." (Hear.) Her Ma-
' jesty's Ministers were in the position that they had not one
single Irish member connected with the Cabinet from whom
they could obtain the slightest reliable information as to the
temper and opinion of the people of Ireland. (Cheers.)
They did not even attempt to consult any of those out of
office who would be willing to enlighten them upon the sub-
ject. (Hear.) As paradoxes were at a premium in the Cali-
net, perhaps they acted upon the hypothesis that the opinions
of nersons who were well informed upon a subject might be
so engrained by prejudice that it would be better not to go
to them for their opinion. But whether this was their theory
or not it was unquestionably their practice, and they would
have every opportunity of carrying out that principle w, th
the most perfect and most uninterrupted success ;
because ho conceived that when the Irish supporters of her
Majesty's Government went back to their constituents their
fidelity to their party would not be, as heretofore, a matter
for glorification, but a matter for excuse, (Cheers.) He
knew perfectly well it would be thrown in their teeth that
his argument want to this, that Ireland was to be governed
by grants, subsidies, and contracts. (Ironical cheers.)
That was not the meaning he wished to convey. The ques-
tion at issue was not this miserable dole of £7B,ooo—the
question was whether, while English enterprise was to
meet with favour, Irish enterprise was to be treated with
disfavour. (Cheers.) It wee the question of the spirit and
animus which had influenced the Government from the be-
ginning to the end of this unhappy matter—it was the ques-
tion whether political antipathies were to be indulged in at
the expense of Ireland—whether in wounding Ireland they
could discredit Lord Derby, and gratify party pique by the
destruction of a nation's hopes. (Loud cheers.) When he
went back to those who sent him to that house he should
be forced to tell them that her Majesty's Government had
given another proof that Ireland might contribute, but shot
shoot
should not receive ; that she might sow, but she should
fell
reap, that she was not worthy of the crumbs that from
and the
stated he had placed the motion upon the paper,s
this—that
the rich man's table. (Cheers.) For the reasonsfe
way in which he wished it to be acted upon should be
the question
might be satisfac-
instead of having a large committee,he had
chosen for their
leftah ability
ot y theand
impartiality,arbitration
one member to conduct
' tory to place upon the commit
and one member to defend
the case on the part of Ireland,
he could sod nowt
that in insisting
the Government, but
shouldall he
be judged not merely u ta
upon the
that this question
of•• the contract, he should
letter but in the op
int
eadiness in the impartial acquiesce
with the most perfect readiness anfivd.efee4g:rhuttipesmietn
partial decision of
five English geutlere •
I rise t reply to some observations
which
the hon. gentleman. made at the commencement of
It was an
his speech. irregularity, no doubt, to refer to a
fernier debate, but since the hon. gentleman chosen to
commit the irregularity, I must be permitted to follow him.
The hon. gentleman has made a charge against me of want
Lord I. RUSSELL--I
of frankness in this matter, and I am bound to state to the
house what occurred. There had been on the morning of a
veryimportant debate an imputation mentioned in a news •
paper of the most general circulation (the Times) that there
had been a bargain made between the Government and the
Irish members, and that in consideration of £36,000, to be
paid for the Galway contract, the Irish members were to sap_
port the Government. Now, I consider that as a calumny
I stated on the part of the Government that it was a calumny
upon the Government. I certainly had aright to do that.
(Cheers.) It was obvious that the imputation was made
against the Government on the one side and against the
Irish members on the other. It was my business as a mem-
ber of the Government to deny the imputation as regarded
the Government. The right hon. member (Mr. Disraeli)
spoke rather early in the debate, and referred incidentally
to the question of the Galway contract; and therefore it be-
came my opportunity and my duty to refute tie calumny.
It was for the Irish members to refute that part of the ca-
lumny which referred to themselves. (Oh, oh.) But with,
regard to the conduct of the Government, I stnoed that I
had been informed by my noble friend aiat a
gentleman
who seemed entitled to ask the e..stion had asked hut! to
receive a deputation of Trial members on Monday morning,