Lords Sitting of 4 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000).
3a Marriage Law Amendment.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT—THE REV. MR. DALY.—EXPLANATION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: My Lords, I trust your Lordships will permit me to trouble the House for a short time while I make a statement on a personal matter, in reference to what passed in the House last night. I have been favoured this morning with a visit from the rev. gentleman whose name was mentioned in the discussion of last night—I mean the Rev. Mr. Daly; and I wish to explain that, with reference to that rev. gentleman I had fallen into a mistake which I wish for an opportunity of correcting. I stated last night that Mr. Daly called on me before he had the interview with Lord Palmerston. I was in error. He called on me on Monday, having seen Lord Palmerston on the previous Friday; and he had a memorial in his hand from Galway, which he said he wished to present to Lord Palmerston, and he wished me to accompany him to present it. I declined to do so: and Mr. Daly proceeded to call on Lord Palmerston; but he did not
542
on that occasion see his Lordship; but he left his memorial. Not having seen Mr. Daly subsequently, I supposed that that was the interview which has been so frequently referred to. In that I was in error. The interview took place on the Friday before the discussion in the Budget, and at that time I was in Ireland. I the more naturally fell into the mistake, because it so happened that the two Gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons, whom I am in the habit of consulting on Irish affairs, and especially on the affairs of the county with which I am connected, are my two relations, one Member for the town and the other for the county of Galway, and neither of those Gentlemen had any communication of any kind whatever from Mr. Daly previously to the interview with Lord Palmerston. One arrived in England on Friday morning, the other on Friday night; and I mention this to show how very improbable is the whole story that Mr. Daly was, or represented himself to be authorized by any Members of Parliament to speak in their names to the Prime Minister. Mr. Daly came to me this morning principally for the purpose of saying that he was most anxious to have the opportunity which my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) wished he should have of appearing at the bar of either or both Houses of Parliament, to state exactly what did take place, and to clear himself from the imputation which had been made against him. I thought it right, wishing to be very particular in the matter, to take down in writing what Mr. Daly stated was the purport of the interview with Lord Palmerston; and, instead of speaking from my own recollection, with your Lordships' permission I will read the memorandum which I made. Mr. Daly said—"He appears to have been misunderstood and that he certainly has been entirely misrepresented if Lord John Russell at any time stated"—
EARL GRANVILLE: I rise for the purpose of putting it to the discretion of the noble Marquess whether he is quite in order in entering into these details. It was quite competent to the noble Marquess to explain any error into which he had himself fallen in referring to his interview with Mr. Daly; but it seems to me that there would be great inconvenience in introducing on this occasion matter respecting the interview between Mr. Daly and Lord Palmerston, and concerning the con-

543
duct of the Irish Members; seeing that in this House, where the question would be raised, neither Lord Palmerston nor the Irish Members could be present. I merely throw this out for the consideration of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: No doubt. But I have not said one word which was out of order or which referred either to this or to the other House of Parliament. It was Lord John Russell who named the Prime Minister; it was Lord John Russell who said that a person had waited on Viscount Palmerston, "seeming to be authorised." I do not know why Lord John Russell said this. I suppose he had some grounds which satisfied himself, though I do not think he could have had any. He said he "seemed to have been authorized" to make certain statements affecting the honour of certain Gentlemen. It is incidental to those Gentlemen that they are Members of Parliament. It was my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) who mentioned the matter in this House as one deserving of full investigation, and who expressed a wish that Mr. Daly should be afforded the opportunity of appearing at the Bar—I think of either House of Parliament—and being asked whether any person, Member of Parliament or otherwise, had authorised him to hold out any threat or to offer any corrupt promise to the Prime Minister. Such suggestion having been made by my noble and learned Friend, I am in the recollection of the House whether it is not usual for a person so mentioned in this House to have a fair opportunity given him for making a statement? Mr. Daly says—
"That he appears to have been quite misunderstood; and that he was entirely misrepresented by Lord John Russell if Lord John stated that he (Mr. Daly) had told or intimated to Viscount Palmerston that he was authorized to speak on behalf of any M.P.'s, or of any individuals whatever. That, in fact, the question of a deputation arose out of his having said that he had no such special authority, but was confident that he was stating truly the general sentiment of all classes in Ireland. Mr. Daly denies that he offered, or attempted any sort of bargain, traffic, or negotiation whatever. That what he said was, that the strongest possible and most universal feeling on the subject existed all over Ireland, and that he believed and he trusted that the Irish representatives shared in and would act in accordance with this feeling, and would prefer the plain interests of their country to all other considerations whatever [a laugh"]; that in saying this he did not refer or allude to any individuals, or party, or to any section of a party. He says that the phrase of 'taking action' arose out of a question asked by
544
Viscount Palmerston, and did not refer or apply to any special vote whatever, but to the attitude which he expected and hoped that the Irish people and their representatives would assume and permanently maintain [a laugh] towards the Ministry, according as Ireland was dealt with. [Laughter.] That he made no improper, corrupt, or unconstitutional threat or offer; that he said, and says, that he believes and hopes that the feelings of Ireland towards the Government will be mainly influenced by the justice shown to or withheld from her in this matter, which is the most pressing and important that can affect her progress and prosperity." [Laughter.]
Now, my noble Friends may laugh; but do they hold the interests and prosperity of the country as light matters? I want to know on what grounds but those of attending to those interests and that progress can any Government claim the confidence of the people of Ireland? I said so much as that last night myself, and the noble Lord who followed me did not show—I defy him to show—that such is not the proper and constitutional language of a free people. It is what the elector says to his representative and the Parliament to the Ministers of the Crown. The elector says, "I will not support men who act contrary to the interests of the country; I withhold my confidence from such men, and I shall give it to those who will give me justice and attention." If such language is to be called a threat, I should like to know what are the speeches of Ministers themselves when appealing to their constituents on the hustings, when such feelings are always exhibited as this gentleman very properly attributes to the people of Ireland?
LORD BROUGHAM: I am sure your Lordships will believe that nothing could be farther from my wish, or thought, or imagination, in any way than to have Father Daly at the Bar of this House on any occasion whatever. Your Lordships will also do me the justice to recollect that I was not the person who first introduced the subject of the interview of Father Daly with Lord Palmerston, for it was referred to first by the noble Lord the President of the Council, and afterwards by the noble Marquess himself, who dwelt repeatedly on it. It was in consequence of the allusion by those noble Lords, as well as its connection with the subject matter of the discussion, that I ventured to make the remark which has been attributed to me. There can be no doubt whatever that the statement of Lord Palmerston was that an offer had been made—not actually made, but given notice of being about to be made

545
—of an interview with his Lordship, on the part of the Government, by certain Irish Members ["Oh, no!"]—by certain Irish Members who took an interest in the Galway contract, and who desired to see his Lordship on the subject matter of the Galway contract: and when Lord Palmerston answered, "I have no objection to see them, but it must be after Monday"—"Oh, no," it was said, "then it will be too late, for they must take action on Monday night on a subject entirely different from the Galway contract—namely, on the paper duties." Their "taking action" on Monday night depended on what passed on Saturday, the day on which the interview was requested. It now turns out that "taking action on Monday night" meant "assuming a permanent attitude," and not taking action on that particular question which was coming on upon the Monday night—namely, the paper duties. Well, there is nothing one cannot believe. One has lived too long to suppose anything incredible; and, therefore, I am bound to suppose that was the meaning of the reverend Father, who, I understand, is a highly respectable man, though very zealous on this subject—as, indeed, I believe is all Ireland—and, therefore, quite incapable of making a misrepresentation. The examination of this gentleman by this House, to which reference has been made, is out of the question; but it is possible in the other House if, as I should hope, Irish Members should desire to take a course by which the whole matter might be cleared up, and themselves cleared from a suspicion which at present, more or less, hangs over them. Here, this would not be in point; there, it would be perfectly.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: Perhaps my noble and learned Friend will state where he got the statement said to have been made by Lord Palmerston, that Irish Members requested an interview? I do not remember that Lord Palmerston has made such a statement.
LORD BROUGHAM: I did not understand Lord Palmerston to have said that any Irish Member asked for an interview. What I understood Lord Palmerston to have said was that Father Daly asked him to give an interview to Irish Members on Saturday, because after Monday it would be too late, as they must take action on Monday night.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.