The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-08 00:00:00

pressed, ,and read the ♦ery letter from Sir C. Trevelyan
which he had read. But having done this, and stood up for
his constituents, he felt that the question was a general one,
and had left it in the hands of the house. He approved of
the committee, and hoped that its inquiries would embrace
all the contracts.

Mr. ELLICE did not wish to cast any reflection on any
party in connection with these contracts, but would draw
attention to the injury that had been done to the province of
Canada. That province had granted a large subsidy to as-
sist the people of Liverpool in completing a regular weekly
service. The vessels of the Cunard Company were ex-
tremely well appointed, the letters of the public were car-
ried for nothing, and the communication was complete. The
late Government, under these circumstances, might have
had a little regard for the tax-payer before entering into a
new contract. (Hear, hear.) He doubted whether the pro-
posed committee would be of any service ; the facts were well
known to the public. If there was one person more meri-
terious than another in connexion with this business, it was

Sir Samuel Cunard ; the way in which he had established

.arried on this service entitled him to the thanks of the

mblic ; and he was certainly deserving of something like
avour. Still the house ought to see that the terms of the con-

tract were not too high. There were nightly demands on the
Chancellor of the Exchequer for the repeal of the paper duty,
or some other tax ; and the house ought not to continue the

practice of voting away large sums of inoneywithouyinquir. y.
With the means which Sir Samuel Cunard possessed for*/
carrying out'a packet service the payment of £73,000 a year
for this new contract was money absolutely thrown away.
(Hear, hear.) He was jealous of the quarter from which
the proposal for this committee emanated, but hoped that
their inglidry would be directed to ascertain whether it was
true, as was generally believed by the public, that the Gal-
way contract was a gross and scandalous job. (Hear.)
Mr. VANCE defended the Galway contract, and said
that the Cunard service was not satisfactory to the people of
Newfoundland. One of the Cunard vessels was recently de-
tained nine hours at Liverpool for want of water. The Irish
traffic alone was so considerable as to require a separate ser •
vice. As to public competition, he would observe that the
Cunard contract had not been the result of. a competition.
The late Government had prolonged Sir Samuel Cunard's
contract, and had given him a dislinguished mark of the
royal favour, but that was no reason why the interests of Ire-
land should be overlooked. He hoped the house would not
consent tethe committee having any retrospective operation
with regard to contracts already entered into.
Lord DUNCAN asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether the contract was concluded, and whether the house
was bound down to its fulfilment for seven Veers to come.
Long before this committee reported it would be necessary
for the house to deal with the question. In reading the
terms of the contract, he could not but feel that the late
Treasury had treated the Postmaster-General with contempt.
Mr. DISRAELI wished to say, on the part of the late
Government, that it would have been much more satisfac-
tory to them had the subject of the Galway line been
brought specificajly under the consideration of the house,
and whenever such a course was taken, he would be pre-
pared to enter fully into the question. (Cheers,) The only
condition he would make was one which was not unusual in
that house—namely, that fair notice should be given that
the subject would be brought forward. (Hear, hear.) From
what he had heard before he entered the house with regard
to the intention of the Government, he did not expect that
the subject of the Galway grant would have been discussed.
He was, therefore, unprepared with papers, and had no
opportunity of refreshing his recollection, and he believed he
might say that all his late colleagues in the Government
were in the same position. He certainly would have sup-
posed that such a statement as had been made by the right
hon. member for Kilmarnock would have been preceded by
a formal notice. With regard to the contract which ap-
peared to have excited so much alarm in the mind of the
noble lord who last spoke, he believed it would be in the
power of the house, when a vote of money was proposed, to
reject it entirely. Formerly, when contracts of this nature
were concluded, inasmuch as the expenditure was defrayed
from the Post-office revenue, they were not subject to the
pleasure of Parliament ; but, speaking from recollection, he
believed that in the present instance it was for the first time
specially provided that the contract should depend upon
the approval of Parliament, and the House, of Com-
mons would, therefore, have a fair and complete oppor-
tunity of expressing its opinion upon the policy recom-
mended by the late Government. He would be unable to
do justice to the conduct of the late Government if on this
occasion, without the opportunity of referring to a single
paper, he entered upon a defence of the course they had
pursued, or attempted to answer every allegation made by
the right hon. member for Kilmarnock. He hoped that,
although the house might assent to the appointment of this
committee, the right hon. gentleman would find it consis-
tent.with his convenience to bring the question of the Gal-
way grant specially before the house, and at as early a period
as possible. (Hear, hear.) He would only say that, both
with regard to the prcdongation of Sir Samuel Cunard's
contract and the conclusion of the contract for the Galway
line, the late Government had been influenced by no other
consideration than what was thought to be the public ad-
vantage—(cheers)—and when the committee had instituted
an inquiry it would be found that " jobs" were neither so
flagrant nor so frequent as it was very easy to assume they
were in discussions in that :house. He felt confident that
in both the cases which had been referred to—for which in
a great degree, and particularly for one of them, the late
Government was responsible—it would be found that in ad-
vising the expenditure of the public money they were influ-
enced by the only feeling which he believed could influence
the Ministers of the Crown in this country—a conviction
that the course they recommended was for the public ad-
vantage. (Hear hear.) He thought it right, before he sat
down, to notice one observation which had been made by
the right hon. member for Kilmarnock, because it im-
plied an inconsistency in the conduct of a noble friend of
his in another place which could not for a moment be main-
tained. The right hon. gentleman said that, on the 15th of
February—the date of a minute which intimated that the
Treasury were prepared to enter into a contract—Lord
Derby had stated in the House of Lords, in answer to a
question, that the Treasury had not entered into a contract,
and the right hon. gentleman dilated upon the inconsistency
between this statement and the fact. Now, there was really
no inconsistency whatever. When this inquiry was made
Lord Derby stated what was precisely the fact—namely,
that the Government had not entered into any contract with
the Galway Company, although a proposition on the sub-
ject was under their consideration. Although he (Mr.
Disraeli) believed that on the same day a Treasury minute
was agreed to, announcing that the Government were pre-
pared to enter into a contract, that minute intimated at the
same time that its adoption was subject to certain condi-
tions being agreed to and fulfilled by the company, and
weeks elapsed before those conditions were ascertained and
settled. There was, therefore, no inconsistency between
the language of the minute and the statement of 'his noble
friend. He thought it was due to Lord Derby that be should
make this explanation, and he regretted that the course
taken by the right hon. member for Kilmarnock limited to
this point for the present his vindication of the Govern-
ment. He could only repeat for himself and his late col-
leagues that they would be perfectly prepared to vindicate
the course they had pursued if the right hon. gentleman
would bring the subject of the Galway contracts specifically
under the consideration of the house, and he entertained
the utmost confidence that their conduct would receive the
approval of Parliament.
Mr. RICH contended that Mr. Bouverie had most pro-
perly introduced the subject of the Galway contract, now
that the house was appointing a committee on contracts. He
wished to call attention to the Dover contract, entered into
in 1854. In 1855, the contractor asked for more favourable
terms. These were not granted, but he got an extension of
the contract. In 1857 he applied for further indulgence
without success. The matter rested till January last, 20
months, when the application was renewed to the late Go-
vernment, who, after a reference to the Post-office, agreed
that the contractor should receive additional compensation
for extra services arising out of the increased communication
with India. He afterwards sent in a fresh demand. The
report of the Post-office was that the contract was entirely
objectionable in principle and practice. The report of the
Post-office was made on the 10th of March. Then they
heard nothing more of it till the middle of April. About that
time the aspect of affairs in that house changed. A fresh
demand had been opened on the part of the contractor, and
his demands, which had been strongly reported against by
the Post-office, were acceded to by the Treasury. The terms
were that he was to have an additional subvention of £2,500
a year granted to him, and the period of his contract was
extended from 1863, when it would expire, to 1870. The
grounds for accepting those terms were that the contractor
had, some time previously, bought some old vessels from the
goirernment, that he lost two vessels and had three collisions
in the course of two years, and that the conveyance of the
mails under the old system cost £5,000 a year more than
under the new contract. All these were bad reasons for en-
tering into the contract. It was not the question how much the
mails had been carried for under an old and exploded system,
but how much they would now be carried for. He begged
the house to remark the date of the, contract. It had been
refused in 1857 by the preceding Government ; atth e begin-
ning ning of the present year there was what was tantamount
a refusal by the late Government. Then came the period of
the dissolution. Between the 10th of March, when the
Post-
office reported strongly against it, and the 15th of April,
there was a want of documentary evidence valde deliendus.
He considered that this contract required a special inquiry,
and that the conduct of the late Government should not be
cushioned and smothered by a general inquiry which might
last two or three years. He hoped it would be understood
that these two contracts—the Dover and the Galway con-
tract—were to be entered into at the earliest moment by the
committee, and if the result was to clear the late Govern-
ment of any imputation he should rejoice.
Mr. LYGON said the hon. gentleman drew an inference
unfhvourable to the late Government from the fact that the
matter had been entirely dropped between March and April.
He gave his unqualified denial to the representation made,
because a great many things had been brought under his
notice between those dates for consideration, although they
did not asume a form which required them to be entered on
paper. He believed the Dover contractor had been no
pecuniary gainer by, the contract beyond the renewal of the
contract, for the addition of £2,500 was little more than
payment for special services performed for the Government.
The contractor also undertook to make certain improve-
ments in the conduct olthe packet service which would be
most ad vantag,couato the public. He agreed in the doctrine
that the losses of the contractor should not form a ground
for showing him any favour, but from the way in which the
contractor in this instance exerted himself to meet the in-
creased pressure of the Indian correspondence he showed
that he deserved an extension of his contract.
Sir M. PETO said a very strong feeling existed in the
public mind on the subject of these contracts. As an instance
of the mode in which these contracts were conducted he
would mention that a deputation from Canada called on the
right hon. gentleman the member for Devonport, with re-
gard to the Cunard contract, and they were informed that it
was not the intention of the then ilovernment to renew that
contract. The province of Canada, acting under that im-
pression, subsidised a line at a cost of £lOO,OOO between
Liverpool and the St. Lawrence. But the Cunard contract
had been subsequently extended, on which account the
people of Canada felt that a great practical injustice had
been done to them. When the Legislature of Canada met
hi. had no doubt they would receive some strong protests
on this subject.
Mr. M‘MAHON regretted to see so much commercial
jealousy of Ireland exhib ~ed as was developed by the whole
of this .transaction respecting the Galway line. It was
matter of notoriety, as was evident from the report of the
committee of 185.3 on steam packet contracts, that the coun-
try lost no less than £500,000 a year by subsidies granted
to various steam packet companies in this country over and
above the net earnings of the Post-office. (Hear, hear.)
The Cunard contract alone entailed a net loss of iaof less
than 1:61,642 ; the Halifax and New York line, £173,000 ;
the West Inhia and Brazil line, from Southampton,
£180,000; the Callao and Valparaiso line, £19,525. In the
report of the Post-office, just published, these sums were
very properly called bounties and subsidies, and were not
estima•ed as deductions from the revenue of the Post-office
receipts. . The reason was, that the expenditure was en-
tered into for other than maintaining postal communication
—namely, " for fostering maritime enterprise, and moon.
raging the production of a superior class of vessels," If that

were so, was it not desirable to encourage packet stations in 1
Ireland, to promote the same objects ? (Hear.) Let the
house act on the true principles of political economy by
abolishing all bounties and subsidies, and then Ireland
would beat England in the American traffic, because they
could sail faster and cheaper. They incurred a net loss of
£500,000 for England to foster commerce and the building
of large ships ; but the moment a trifling sum of £12,000
was granted to a line from Ireland, on which it was by no
means certain that a single penny of the public money
would be lost, then the principles of pclitical economy, or
rather the commercial rivalry and hostility of the conntry,
were set in motion to resist it. (Hear, hear.) He thought
the late Government ware entitled to great credit and honour
for resisting this feeling, and doing justice to Ireland.

Mr. BEAMISH moved to re-insert at the end of the
motion the following words, " beyond the limits of the
United Kingdom."
Mr. WHITESIDE said he did not intend to speak on
the amendment which had just been moved, but he could
not help expressing his surprise at the absence of the right -
hon. gentleman the member for Kilmarnock after the ex-
plosion of so muoh patriotic indignation. He took part in
a meeting in Dublin ten years ago on this very subject, and
yet it was said it had been suddenly got up by the late
Government as, a job. The right hon. gentleman, after
assuming everything in bis own favour, walked out of the
house. (Hear.) There is not a town or city in Ireland, ex-
cept Cork and Limerick, which had interests of their own
in the matter, which did not express their desire in favour
of the packet-station at Galway. A noble lord who was
not now in the Cabinet, for what reason he did not know,
congratulated the promoters on the success of the under-
taking, which had been now established by experiment.
The noble lord who wrote the letter in which that avowal

was made was Lord Clarendon. (Hear.) It was no small
advantage that the dangers of the Channel passage were
avoided by, the establishment of the Galway line. The
house would recollect the calamity which happened to the
Great Britain. Another vessel was also wrecked in passing
down the Channel. He did not like to name the vessel,

because which of them it was he forgot. (Loud laughter.
But independently of its commercial and political advan
tages, the quick passage by the Galway line conferred a
benefit on the second and third class passengers which they
could not'get by any other route. Did they suppose that
the* people of Ireland could like to see their letters and
draughts carried past their own shores, and brought back
after a delay of two or three days ? (Hear.) If they did
not think Ireland entitled to this small accommodation let
them say so. The memorial in favour of the Galway line
was signed by Baron Rothschild, by Peabody and Co.,
Masterman, Peters, and Co., and by great numbers of com-
mercial men in Manchester and Birmingham. No doubt
the Galway line would benefit Belfast, and would not bene-
fit Liverpool, and the upshot, he thought, would be that the
linens of the north of.lreland would be conveyed to the west
of Ireland, instead of being shipped across to Liver-
pool. (Hear, hear.) He claimed this as a matter of right
to Ireland if it was just, and he had no fear that it would
be proied to be just, provided the committee was not cora-
, posed of those who were determined to condemn first and
inquire after. (Heir.)
Mr. COWPER said that the right hon. gentleman made
an unfair charge on the right hon. member for Kilmarnock,
because he had left the house after making a temperate
speech. (" Hear, hear," and " Oh, oh.") His right hon.
friend gave chapter and verse fcr everything he said, and
after the remarks of the right hen. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)
he could not have supposed that the house would enter into
the subject. But the right hon. and learned gentleman,
instead of meeting the case against the Government, ap-
pealed to the patriotic feelings of Irishmen, and made it a
question as between England and Ireland. Nothing had
been said which could lend the slightest shadow of accuracy
to such a view as that. He for one was delighted that Ire-
land had a packet communication of her own. But no such
scheme had ever been proposed as a Government would
have been justified in adopting. The complaint against
the late Government was not because they chose to estab-
lish a Galwarjacket service, but because they chose to estab-
lish a duplicate line at the same time that they extended the
Cunard contract. (Hear, hear.) If they had wished to deal
economically with the finances of the country, instead of
extending the Cunard contract, they would have looked for-
ward to a reduction of it, and a transfer of some portion of
the service to the new line from Galway to the United
States. If that had been done there would have been no
complaints. The Government. were censured because they
disregarded the principle laid down in the letter of the Sec-
retary to the Treasury, and gave the contract without any
competition. There was no objection to an Irish line. The
objection was only to the way in which the ,contract had
been given, and that he hoped would be sifted by the com-
mittee. In the case of the Dover contract the Government
had shown a similar disregard of the principle of competi-
tion, and renewing the contract while it had four years to
run, had deprived the public of possibly a very great ad-
vantage.
Lord NAAS was glad to hear the right hon. gentleman
admit that a great public object would be attained by the
establishment of a direct line from Galway to America.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. member for Kilmarnock had
denounced the whole scheme from beginning to end as a
profligate waste of public money. (Hear, hear.) What was
the course taken by the late Go'i emment ? They found a
company at Galway in possession of the ground and per-
forming the service, and they gave them the contract. It
was quite true the line had not been put up to public com-
petition, but there was no absolute rule that it should be so.
Great stress had been laid on the letter' f Lord Colchester,
but he said he would not object to the contract if any great
public object would be attained by it, and if the remunera-
tion was made dependent on the success. The Treasury bad
carried out that principle, and unless the line was successful,
the promoters would not be entitled to the remuneration.
Putting Ireland entirely out of the question, the new line
would materiallyimprove the communication, as it appeared
that the company were bound to perform the service in '24
hours less than the average of the Cunard line. The whole
matter had been most carefully considered by, the Govern-
ment, and he had no doubt that, when the promoters had
an opportunity of setting their case before the committee,
they would be able to show that the scheme would confer
enormous benefits not only on Ireland but on this country
and on Europe at large. (Hear.) if direct telegraphic com-
munication with America was not established, the compara-
tive advantages would be still greater. He believed that
rival interests and commercial jealousy had a good deal to
do with this opposition. He begged the house to recollect
that of the large sums voted for postal services none went
to any ocean steamers starting from Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. EWART could assure the house that asfar as Liver-
pool was concerned, there was no feeling of jealousy in the
matter. He had denounced the transaction from the first on
account of the conduct of the Treasury. He and his col-
league had gone there to ask that if the Government had
decided on establishing a line of steamers from Galway,
they would put it up for public competition, if that had been
done no complaints would have been made. (Hear.)
Col. DUNNE was glad of the discussion, as it would
show the people of Ireland that the first act of the new Go-
vernment was to upset the only advantage they had received
for many years. (" Hear, hear," and " No, no.") If the
tenders had been open to public competition, the line could
never have been worked at all, as it would have been taken
by persons who would not work it. The Irish members
must look carefully to the selection of the committee, and
see that they were not all excluded from it, as they were
fiom the present Government. (Hear.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY considered that the motion be-
fore the house had been lost sight of. (Hear.) The ques-
tion was whether they would not appoint a committee to
investigate the mode in which these contracts were made.
He doubted, however, whether the proposed inquiry was
eniemtplteeoremlaergdey,
manigdhthebewdoulevdieesdu, gbgyesrtecituiharitnagntheaslaiwer nd
haend.
ever any subvention was granted to a company, it should
be proposed to the house by a responsible Mmister, and be
treated as a public bill.
Sir F. BARING had observed that the naval estimates
wouldcontainedg
gae votea t otnh
ea
votecco u n
be
eo f p theoetp
noevde r
unc otnilt rea cftt. er H
thee
committee e
dh t
oa d itnhqeuyi rf!.
could
into
otrhd el
ys
ruebsjteeicnd. t
hI
ef
etohnet
rveoet
te was
. He
o
once agre ,
would suggest that a rule should be made requiring that all
these contracts should be laid on the table, and not be valid
unless they were unobjected to for a certain time after.
Mr. MAGUIRE had expected that the motion would
have been agreed to as a matter of course, but it appeared
the jealousy of a right hon. gentleman had been excited to
such an extent as to induce him to make a violent attack
on the late Government. (Hear, hear.) It was a custom
to charge Ireland with want of exertion and self-depen-
dence, but as soon as the Galway people showed they
were possessed of both every attempt was made to
excite and foment local jealousy in Ireland against them.
He had no feeling of the kind. He believed Cork har-
bour was the first in the world, and it would right itself ;
but even at present the Lever enterprise had served it, as it
now touched to
ibhleeonrwet aeo ntntdet aepintreddpe
rdt
oe
dt he ei
interfererssmorasi
had directed the attention of shipowners to it, and two lines
sit
nha neoydr
dwep
ora
ust
lsode ni
engxfleci
te.
eI fpt
ohs et
posthumous
the indignation of every community in Ireland. (Hear.) If
there were any difficulties in the harbour of Galway why
not remove them and give Ireland a share of the millions
that were spent on the harbours of this country. He trusted
the people of Galway would reap the advantages of their
energy, and his proposal to give an additional subsidy of
£2,500 to Sir S. Cunard for calling at Cuba was intended in
no spirit of antagonism to the Lever enterprise. (Hear.)
Lord J. BROWNE had heard, with great pain, from
the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the
Galway contract was still in embryo. There were no com-
plaints of granting public money to steamships so long as
the monopoly was confined to England, but as soon as Ire-
land got a share the virtuous indignation of the economist
was excited. In what was Liverpool superior to Galway ?
It was three or four hundred miles further from America,
or fully a day and a half, so that would be a saving of at
least a day, and still more for Irish letters. Was Ireland to
have an equality in nothing else but taxation ? He thought
the best thing to be done would be to let both contracts run
out, and then throw the whole open to competition from
every port, and let whichever offered the best terms get it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished to
explain one or two points which had been raised. With
regard to the discouragement of Irish enterprise, he could
assure the house there was no such feeling. He mild not
help saying that what had taken place had shown one of
the evils that belonged to all systems of subsidies. The in-
evitable effect of the system of Fouling subsidies in aid of
private enterprise was to give rise to jealousy and
between. different establishments, all seeking for Govern-
mental aid. With regard to the order in which the com-
mittee would act he declined to anticipate, but with re.
ference to the manifest convenience of such a course the
subject of the Galway contract would first be considered.
At the same time, considering that the Dover contract, to
which allusion had been made, was one which would occupy
perhaps but a limited time, it might perhaps be judged ex••
pedient to take that in the first instance. An hon. friend of
his suggested that the motion should be extended so as to
give the committee pawer to consider the principle of these
contracts. He had no objection to the alteration proposed,
but he must say that he thought it unnecessary. As the re-
solution stood it was for a committee to inquire into the
system of these contracts, and to ofler recommendations to
the house on the subject. To do this it followed that the
committee should consider the principle involved in the
whole subject. It remained for him to state to the house the
course which the Government intended to pursue pending.
this inquiry. The Government considered that whilst the
committee sat—a period which, although it might extend
beyond a few weeks, would not run to several years—they
should, as much as possible, hold their hands from entering
into any contract. They therefore intended, in all cases
which were not of an urgent nature, or were of a purely
temporary character, to take that course.
Mr. BE AMISH withdrew the amendment which he had
suggested.
The motion was then agreed to.
HIGHWAY ROADS.
Sir C. LEWIS obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend
the law relating to highway roads.
iHe reminded the house
that this was a subject of na mean mportance. In the year
1855 the amount levied by the Highway Act alone was
£1,181,000. The total amount raised for the purpose of re-
pairingthehi was 42,108,000, whilst the total ex-
d ffoewr
e,
ntth
locale w ho
authorities,
thisof
penditnre
independent w a £421,11a2g6,,...,
d 0( )0h
y eenpelundent of each other. The six couPaticeetinsdnoii
mt nut. ee aba, d
icltii Wales presented the only exception. 'Various bills