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

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

thole of the case 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withdrawn from employment.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 betiefit the poor ; but the question
then arose, were these changes to be effected in a manner
just to the parties interested P 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 ii
_ _

passed into other hands. This question had been mos
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 mere 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 he 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 should 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 committed 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 ba 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, hear.) 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 nGt 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 whieh 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. TR,O LLOPE 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 DUNKELLIN 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,
from
snf
d giving
a ect r t
ho othedhado u
was a fitting subject for inquiry, he would undertake on
the part of his hon. colleague that ho would not shrink
suchba explanationshouse.
sany
His
n yidea
o£
thhon.
hisat suchconduct
colleague
a p petition
haveld
at sit
wouldon wouldo u
a if
be
satisfactory
been presented. He supported the motion for its 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
wthinlkd do
fit
the petition. He thought that, under the circumstance of
given to the hon. member for Galway,
nwt hoeelnlhototoni notice
ehavingtihd memberrawthefor
petition, Brighton(Mr.and7
iCfonhiengshhoaunald) ou
to give notice to the hon. member for Galway, to present it
been
at a future time. (No, no—reject it.) The hon.. and
learned member for Sheffield had stated that the petitro.n
contained matter which was libellous ; now the chargess in
the petition might be utterly groundless or they mi 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, he
thought the hon. member ought not to have presented the
ress it
petition, but having done so he hoped he would not p
upon the house without giving the hen, member for Gal-

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 libelous 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 reception 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 no 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 so, 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 born 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. :le 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 petiticner 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
curtain 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, to matter how low his position might
be in society, and the fai fame of the member would be in-
jured by such a proceeling. (Hear.) These allegations
would go forth to the morld ; the member would be gib-
beted before the public, and at the same time the allega-
tions might be entirely eroundless and false, yet the charges
would go forth in the newspapers, and do the hon. member
considerable damage. le 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. DUNCOMBI' said if there were one privilege
or right which the peopb prized more than another, it ayes
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. meraber 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 Gal way, and it asked the house t o 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 alegations 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 tring forward a petition properly
worded, and give not ice to the member charged ; and if the
charges were true, let the member be expelled from the
house. (Hear, bean)
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 wore 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. If 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 bo 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 the 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 jaimself by inquiry that there was a prima 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 he 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 sfeps on the petition, but allow it to be withdrawn.
(Hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM admitted that in compliance with
the wish of the house he 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 en 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, he 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, ho was will•
ing to withdraw it, and he would leave the matter in the
hands of the house.
Sir J. FER'aUSSON 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 tho personal charges
against his character immediately informed him of them ;
and having disregarded theta for some time, he in the end
prosecuted the libeller, and convicted him of the crime. The
hen. member had not told thetouse 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
unlike that of the ken, members who last year gave hint

the earliest information of the charges made against him I
(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.