The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-12 00:00:00

TICKETS OF LEAVE.

Viscount DUNGANNONmoved for returns of the num-
ber of convicts to whom tickets of leave had been granted
during the years 1857 and 1858, specifying the number
given each year ; also the number who, during that period,
have been remanded to prison in consequence of the com-
mission of any subsequent offence, with a view of submit-
ting the whole subject to the consideration of their lordships
at an early period of the next session.
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
The abler for the second reading of this bill was dis-
charged.

THE IRISH MAILS.
Lord MONTEAGLE, in pursuance of notice, asked the
First Lord of the Treasury in what mode, and under what
authority, it was proposed to give effect to the contract re-
• specting the acceleration of Irish mails, now on the table
of the house ? The noble lord complained that the Go-
vernment made contracts without their being previously
brought under the consideration of Parliament. This con-
tract amounted to £lOO,OOO. Parliament knew nothing
of the transaction. The following year Parliament had
to make provision for payment, and if they objected
they were told it was too late, as the contractors had
acted on the faith of the Government having pledged
itself to them. Practically, these contracts were removed
from the supervision of Parliament, and they were impor-
tant, not only on account of the consequences to which they
led, but on account of the enormous amount of public money
—nearly a million—thus annually expended. In this case
there was a peculiarity which involved a breach of the
law. He charged this contract with illegality. Formerly
the contracts were made by the Post-office, and paid out of
the gross receipts of that department ; but, to bring the ex-
penditure under the cognisance of Parliament, it was pro-
vided that they should be made through the Admiralty. In
this instance the contract was made directly with the Post-
master-General, and not through the Admiralty; and,
therefore, his noble friend (Lord Colchester) was encum-
bered with the responsibility to perform an illegal act. He
trusted most sincerely that the House of Commons would
exercise its just principles, and not with the less vigour and
decision because they would interpose between the Govern-
ment and the violation of the law. One day the Govern-
ment replied to an application from certain parties that the
principle of a contract of this kind was, that it should be
open to public competition, and the next day they made a
contract without any competition and without the approval
of Parliament. He appealed to the noble earl at the head
of the Government with respect to a declaration that he
made. The noble lord was reported to have stated to an ap-
plication made to him, that the contract was not complete,
but that is was still matter for negotiation. He added that
a reservation had been made by the Government for the
purpose of inquiring into the solvency of the company, the
benefits likely to be conferred by adopting the route in
question, and whether the service was likely to be per-
formed in a satisfactory manner. There could be no
doubt the noble earl's attention had been directed to all
the difficult/ea ...of the question. It was said that
contracts of this kind were favourable to the prosperity
of the shipping interest. But a worse blow could not be
struck at the prosperity of the shipping interest than by
Government adopting the artifice—he might almost call it
the trick—of making contracts of this kind, which were not
open to the whole of the shipping interest without excep-
tion, and which were liable to imputations of favouritism.
The Earl of DERBY said he understood the noble lord to
object to the contract on the double grounds—first, that Par-
liament had not been informed beforehand of the inten-
tion to enter into the contract, and its nature and objects ;
and further, that the contract itself was a violation of the
existing act of Parliament. In order to substantiate the
latter part of the case, the noble lord used a word which did
not appear in the contract, and which involved the whole
question whether there had been a violation of the law.
Under the provisions of the Act 17 and 18 Vic., it was pro
vided that all the gross revenues of the various public de-
partments should be paid in, and that an estimate should be
taken.of the sums required for collecting and managing the
revenue. NOW he would admit that this particular charge
was covered by the terms of the act. But the noble lord said
the contract was, that it should be paid out of the "gross'
revenues of the Post-office
noble lord found this word, partwhereof
thethe
folireitdiddidnnoott knowform
contract. The payment
" gross" revenues, but out of not to be made out of tne
the revenues of the Post-office.
Besides, no contract whatever
an express provision of an act oe
rd be valid which violated
Parliament. The circum-
stances under which the contract
were these. Two years ago an •t had been entered into
tamed which authorised the London Parliament was ob-
and North-Western
Railway Company, the Chester and Holyhead Holyhead Railway
Company, and the Dublin Steam Pack Company to cm-
tract with the Government for the conveyance of the mails
to Ireland ; and in pursuance of the eprovisions of that act,
a contract
by which Parliament sanctioned the intoenteceritgai
ow, entered
into for the payment of a certain sum for a
Majesty's late Government, in September, I?Bsse7rvice, her
into a contract verbatim et literatim with hat n
table of the house, and signed by Mr. James Wilson,
then Secretary to the Treasury. (Hear, hear.) A Treasury
the
minute was subsequentlyissucd authorising the Postmaster-
GeneraleasurY to carry that contract into effect. It was therefore
in pursuance of that act of Parliament, and in pursuanceore
of the contract so sanctioned by the late Treasury Board,
that his noble friend the present Postmaster-General had
put his name to the contract which was now the subject of
such strong comment by his noble friend opposite.
(Hear
These were the real facts of the case. Parliament'
hear.)
had authorised the Postmaster-Gen.eral to contract with
the railway companies for a certain service at a certain
e to know
payment* and he (the Ear of Derby) should lik
out of what fund his noble friend was to make that pay..
ment, except from the revenues of the Post-office ? He had
no other funds at his disposal than those which were derived
from the revenues of the Post-office. If his noble friend
(Lord Monteagle) meant to say that the expression " the
revenuee of the Post-office" wag tot the most correct ow

that could be used, he might possibly be right in that ; but
he could assure his noble friend that there was no intention
on the part of her Majesty's Government to deviate from
the course laid down by the law in this matter, nor to con-
ceal any part of the arrangement from the knowledge of
Parliament. The arrangement was made by the f ost-office,
but the sum in lineation could only be paid in p is suance of
an estimate which could be submitted to Parliament by the
Treasury. Parliament had in this case sanctioned the enter •
ing into the contract, and that contract had been signed by
the present Government, as a similar one had been signed
by the late Government; but the execution of it must de-
pend on Parliamentary voting, by way of estimate, the surd
of money necessary to carry it into effect. That contract
was not to come into operation until June, 1860 ; and his
noble friend was now, in 1&59, complaining that the Go-
vernment had laid on the table the whole particulars of an
agreement which was entered into under the authority of
an act of Parliament, and for the execution of which it
would not be necessary to take one shilling of money until
an estimate for the requisite sum was passed by the House
of Commons in 1860. (Hear, hear.) That was a plain state-
ment of the case, and he did not think his noble friend had
any right to complain that there was in the arrangement
any violation, in letter or spirit, of the act to which refe-
rence had been made, either on the part of the late Govern-
ment or the present, or that any attempt had been made by
either to saddle a public department with a responsibility
which rested with Parliament itself.
The Duke of ARGYLL said, if the words in the contract
ran counter to the law it must be by a mistake, and there
could be no intention on the part of the Government to ex-
pend the sum in question without submitting an estimate to
Parliament. He confessed, when he was at the head of
the Post-office, he felt the whole position of affairs as re-
garded the pticket-service most unsatisfactory. (Hear.)
It was true those matters came before Parliament, but it
was not until the faith of Parliament had been pledged;
and it was then extremely difficult for Parliament to exer-
cise any practical influence upon them.- With regard to
this particular service, he always:thought that Irish mem-
bers had a very strong claim on the support of Parliament ;
but generally he could say the packet-service was not alto-
gether entered into with reference to the business and con-
venience of the Post-office. He felt, in the present state of
the public expenditure, that it was most important not
merely that the sanction of Parliament should have been
given beforehand in this matter, but that in future the par-
ticular arrangement proposed by every Government should
receive the sanction of the House of Commons, and that
without that sanction the contract should not be signed.
That was the only security they could have against undue
influence being brought to bear on the Government, or
against the public suspicion of such influence.
The Earl of HARD WICKE submitted that it would be
desirable to place those contracts for the Post-office service
in the hands of a responsible officer of the department ca-
pable of forming a just opinion of the sum of money to be
expended on them, and who should bear the whole respon-
sibility of them.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said that what the
public complained of was the growingpractice on the part of
Government of entering into expensive contracts without
the knowledge or sanction of Parliament. Such a system
was calculated to lead to gigantic jobs, or at least to the
suspicion of them, and ought to be at once abandoned.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought, on the con-
trary, that the making of contracts should be intrusted to
the Ministers for the time being. In America the system
recommended by the last speaker gave rise to the grossest
corruption. He hoped, however, that the Government
contracts would be looked sharply into, for he believed they
were generally extravagant.
Lord COLCHESTER stated that the heads of the Irish
contracts were•drawn up while the late Government were
in office, and the Postmaster-General was authorized to
complete the agreement. There was no necessity for asking
for any money for the current year, but no intention was
entertained of withdrawing from the notice of Parliament
any sums to be paid under this contract.
Lord MONT EAGLE repeated his assertion that the
contract was illegal, and he trusted that the Government
would amend it. He believed that the error arose from
copying an old form of contract, and he was sure that in the
next session there would be a committee to inquire into
postal contracts and all such matters.
The conversation on this subject then dropped.
The following bills passed through committee :—The
Affidavits by Commission, &c., Bill; the Indemnity Bbl;
the Nottingham Charities Bill, and the St. James Baklersby
Marriages Validity Bill.
The following bills were each read a third time and
passed : The Savings Banks (Ireland) Act Bill and the
Recreation Grounds Bill.