Sitting of 5 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Industrial Schools (Scotland).
2° Friendly and Assurance Societies; White Herring Fishery (Scotland); Dwellings for Working Classes; Criminal Proceedings Oath Relief.

COUNTY VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. MUREobjected to the Bill that it required claimants for the suffrage to take the initiative instead of adopting the system now adopted in the boroughs which gave universal satisfaction, where a public
  598
  officer made up the list of claimants leaving it to any person whose name was omitted to send in his claim. According to this Bill the applicant must in every case send in his own claim, and the assessor's roll was only to be made up after the parties had sent in their claims. He begged to move that it be an Instruction to the Committee on the County Voters (Scotland) Bill to make the rules and regulations contained therein conformable with those of the Act 19 & 20 Vict. c. 58, in so far as they are applicable to counties.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, it would be competent to the Committee to do that which the hon. and learned Gentleman desired to do without an Instruction, and that being so it was contrary to rule that any formal Instruction should be moved. Besides this, the Resolution should have been moved before the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, because it was now an Amendment upon the Motion, and would thus, if successful, supersede the very Committee which it was the purpose of the hon. and learned Gentleman to instruct.
  MR. BLACKBURNthought they ought not to take the Committee on this Bill that day. The Bill as if stood was very imperfect, and many of its provisions would require to be materially altered. There was a separate paper before the House, which was not printed with the Votes, which contained sixty Amendments to be proposed in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman himself who had charge of this Bill (Sir Edward Colebrooke). He thought it would be more convenient to the House if the hon. Gentleman would agree to commit the Bill pro formâ, to have it reprinted with the Amendments he intended to move, and then to take the Committee on the Bill on another day. With that view he moved that the House resolve itself into Committee on that day week.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into the said Committee,'"—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he could not help thinking that the most convenient course to take would be to allow the House to go into Committee on the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House were generally agreed as to the

  599
  principle of the measure. Most of the Amendment which he had to move referred chiefly to matters of detail, and were simply intended for carrying out the suggestions that had been made to him for assimilating the county with the borough registration. He was willing to leave the case in the hands of the House. His object was to conciliate, and if the House thought it better only to go into Committee pro formâ he should be glad to meet their wishes.
  MR. ROEBUCKcharacterized the Bill as an alteration of the Constitution of the country, and said that the Lord Advocate ought to make that alteration on his own responsibility, if it wore to be made at all. Things of this kind were becoming rather frequent in the present day on the part of private Members; but it was a proceeding which the House ought not to permit. Wednesday was rapidly becoming the most pestilent day of the week. From day to day, and almost from hour to hour, the House was making alterations in the Constitution of this country. A sort of higgledy-piggledy mode of doing business was being introduced by private Members interfering in matters which properly belonged to the Government, and the House should set its face against such proceedings. What were they to say to a Bill like the present, to which its own promoter had appended sixty Amendments before the Bill had got into Committee? It was plain that its Mover was not fit to make such a law, and that it was the business of the Lord Advocate to do so.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEwas sure the representatives of Scotland would be very glad if the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) would give them the benefit of his assistance. But he must say that he did not think the views expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman were sound, or in accordance with the usages of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that no alterations of the Constitution of the country should be proposed except by the Government. He (the Lord Advocate) entirely denied that that was sound. It was the privilege of every hon. Member to make proposals for any alterations he pleased; and he thought his lion. Friend (Sir Edward Colebrooke) was more particularly entitled to bring this proposition forward, from the fact that he had done so some years before. The Bill was of great importance, and would effect a very useful reform, and
  600
  he saw no reason why it should not be proceeded with now when they had the whole day before them. As for the number of Amendments they were mostly simply changing September to August in the various clauses, and they could easily be taken as the clauses were put.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) that a measure of this kind ought to be brought in by Government. He thought the proposal to assimilate the registration of counties to that of boroughs was a great change, and of very questionable advantage. He objected to the compelling persons to be on the register. There were frequently parties who did not wish to be mixed up with party politics, and did not wish to be subjected to the annoyance of being canvassed and solicited for their votes at elections. He should support the proposal to adjourn the question for a week.
  MR. DUNLOPhoped that the measure would have general support. He reminded the hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) that, by Clause 13 of the Bill, any person might have his name taken off the register by sending a written note to the assessor. The greater number of the Amendments were merely formal; still he would not object to a postponement, if it were understood that every assistance should be given to pass the Bill.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, it was within his recollection that several important measures proposing alterations of the Constitution had been brought in by independent Members. He might refer to the Bill for the admission of the Jews, the Bill which did away with the property qualification, and the Bill for the Ballot. Those were very great and important changes, and yet they were introduced by private Members. He really thought the recommendation of the Lord Advocate should be adopted, because a vast number of the proposed alterations were of a very trifling description.
  MR. MUREallowed that many of the Amendments were very great improvements, but it would be much more convenient to discuss the Bill with these Amendments printed in it. That course would have to be adopted sooner or later, and it would be more expeditious to do it at once.
  After some observation from Mr. CAIRD, Major CUMMING BRUCE, and Mr. LESLIE,
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he would withdraw his proposition for adjournment of the debate for a week.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEmoved the adjournment of the debate till Friday, with the understanding that the House should go into Committee on the Bill pro formâ.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Friday.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OATH RELIEF BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LOCKE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said that its object was to allow persons who might have a scruple as to taking an Oath, with the leave of the Judge, to make an Affirmation instead. That was the whole of the Bill; and it was confined to criminal cases, because the law in civil cases was precisely the same as he wished to make it in criminal. By the Common Law Procedure Act, 17 &c 18 Vict., if any person was unwilling from alleged conscientious motives to take an oath, the Judge, if satisfied of the sincerity of such declaration, might permit him to make an affirmation. That alteration of the law was made after the greatest consideration on the part of the framers of the Bill, and with the sanction of the law officers of the Crown, and of all the Judges of the land. The form of affirmation was transferred from the Common Law Procedure Act to the present Bill, and was as follows:—
  "I, A. B., do solemnly, sincerely, and truly affirm and declare that the taking of any oath is, according to my religious belief, unlawful; and I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly affirm and declare, &c."
  By the present state of the law a Quaker, Moravian, or Separatist, was allowed to make an affirmation, both in civil and criminal cases; but as there were many persons not belonging to those denominations, who, on religious grounds, entertained objections to the taking of oaths, he thought it was only right that the same relief should be extended to them. The Bill contained three clauses. The first he had explained, the second made the punishment for making a false affirmation the same as for taking a false oath, and the third simply stated when the Bill was to come into operation. The Bill was entirely different in its object and character from that which had been introduced in the course of the Session by the hon.
  602
  Member for Tavistock, and he hoped the House would consent to read it a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be BOW read a second time."
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, as the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. McMahon), who had given notice of an Amendment to reject the Bill, and as the law advisers of the Crown and the Home Secretary were not present, he thought they were hardly in a condition to discuss the Bill at present, and he, therefore, moved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he understood that the law officers of the Crown had been consulted and were favourable to the Bill, and he, therefore, regretted the right hon. Gentleman should oppose it.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) had read the Bill and had no objection to it himself, but was only waiting to see if any one else had. He had, in point of fact, already introduced this Bill in the early part of the Session, and read it a second time, with the title of the "Common Law Procedure Act (1854) Extension." The Solicitor General had approved of the principle of that Bill but had objected to the form in which it was drawn, namely, by way of recital instead of direct enactment. He (Mr. Locke) had redrawn the Bill to meet that objection and submitted it to the Solicitor General for his approval before it was printed. He thought it very hard that he should be compelled to postpone the Bill after all the trouble he had been at for the last six weeks in getting a day to bring it forward.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the object of this Bill was to assimilate the law with regard to the affirmation of witnesses in criminal proceedings with that now existing with regard to civil proceedings. He believed that the Quakers and Moravians had the benefit of a special enactment, allowing them to make an affirmation instead of an oath; but persons who did not come under those denominations, though they might have a conscientious objection to taking an oath, were obliged to take it, or their evidence was rejected. He did not think that any great danger was likely to arise from extending the law to criminal proceedings, as regarded that very limited class of persons. He had had

  603
  some communication with the Solicitor General, and the remark he made was that the law had hitherto shown great jealousy as to substituting affirmations for oaths in criminal cases; but he did not understand him to say that he entertained any decided objection to this Bill, though he expressed some doubts as to its policy. Under these circumstances perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might be inclined to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Bill to be read a second time, on the understanding that the Solicitor General would be present when the Order was taken that the House go into Committee on the Bill.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Estcourt) did not object to the Bill, nor did he; but he objected to the Bill being taken in the absence of the law advisers of the Crown and of the Home Secretary, who at that time was not in the House.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he intended to divide the House against the second reading of the Bill. The effect of this Bill and that of the hon. Member for Tavistock was the same, and both would take from the proceedings in our Courts the sanction of religion.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. HENNESSYthereupon moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Bill merely extended to criminal cases the principle already followed in civil actions. It could not, therefore, be said to ignore the religious sanction of an oath.
  MR. ROEBUCKcould not see why, if exceptions were made in favour of the conscientious scruples of persons wearing peculiar garments, such as the Quakers, others who did not belong to distinctive denominations, but equally objected to take an oath, should not be as unfettered in their action.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, there was a great difference between relaxing a rule in favour of a body of persons belonging to well-known and defined sects, one of whose fixed principles it was not to take an oath, and is favour of any person whatever who
  604
  might choose to say, perhaps for the first time, that he had an objection to swear to the truth of his statements. It appeared to him perfectly reasonable to establish a distinction in that case between criminal and civil proceedings, for the life of a human being was a matter of far more importance than any mere question of property. The criminal law of the country was in general well administered, but there were not as many opportunities of correcting mistakes as in civil proceedings, and it was consequently most desirable that any safeguard at present existing should not be removed.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 31: Majority 34.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday next.

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 3 to 6 were agreed to.
Clause 7 struck out.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 (Bond may be substituted for Deposit),
COLONEL DUNNEmoved to leave out the words "Order in Council," and insert "presentment." He strongly objected to the system of centralization proposed by this measure.
MR. BUTTsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend's proposition would involve a recasting of the whole scheme of the Bill; He appealed to his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
Clause struck out.
Clause 10 agreed to.
MR. BEAMISHmoved the following proviso:—
"Provided always that it shall not be compe* tent to make application for a tramway or tramways under the provisions of this or the said recited Act, to unite places between which a railway or railways directly connecting the same, shall have been constructed under the authority of Parliament, or between which statutory powers for the same purpose shall have been granted, and be in force."
MR. VINCENT SCULLYobjected is the proviso. It would give an unfair monopoly to railways, and would impose an undue restriction on the construction of tramways. The proviso amounted to a

605
proposition to refer the legislation in regard to tramways to persons who were interested in maintaining railways and suppressing tramways.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the proviso was to be found, with a slight alteration, in the Act of last year. The main object of these tramways was to connect railway stations, and they were confined to horse-power. The proviso was not thought of at first; but afterwards an appeal was made by the railway interest to the promoters of the Bill, pointing out that it might possibly be in the power of the constructors of tramways to unite places by these means to the injury of the railway interest, without having recourse to an Act of Parliament. The present proviso, if he understood right, was intended only as a slight extension and explanation of the clause to the same effect which was passed last Session.
LORD NAASsaid, he had not been aware until that moment that a clause resembling the one then under the consideration of the Committee had been passed last Session. He could not approve of the clause in the former Bill, and he was still more strongly opposed to the present clause, which would be one of a still more restrictive character.
Proviso, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BUTTthen moved the insertion of a clause, giving any person entitled to appear on the inquiry before the grand jury, in the event of their approval of the undertaking, the right to traverse that approval.
Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee (Supply) read;
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"

THE GALWAY CONTRACT—CONDUCT OF THE IRISH MEMBERS.
COLONEL FRENCH: Sir, I am sorry to observe that such high authorities as The Times newspaper and a noble Lord who has filled the highest legal office in this country, are both of opinion that further explanation is required to vindicate the
606
honour and gentlemanly feeling of the representatives of Ireland on a recent occasion. When the charge in question was made by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I felt it incumbent on me, as early as possible, to declare that it was totally destitute of foundation. The statement of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary was that, at a moment when an important Motion was pending in this House, the Irish Members had sought an interview with my noble Friend at the head of the Government, with the view—which they must have been madmen to entertain—of intimidating him. When I gave a denial to that statement, the noble Viscount took upon himself to make a reply, which was certainly very amusing, but by no means satisfactory to the honour of those Gentlemen whose conduct had been impugned. My noble Friend, however, admitted that the Rev. Mr. Daly had never asserted to him that he was authorized to request an interview, or to speak in any manner on the part of the representatives of Ireland; and, further, that he himself did not believe Mr. Daly to have received any authority from the Irish Members to make any communication.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No; I did not express any belief either one way or the other.
COLONEL FRENCH: I understood my noble Friend to state, that Mr. Daly told him he had no authority to speak for the Irish Members. Notwithstanding that reply, I suppose we must infer from the remark which my noble Friend has just made that he had a suspicion that the Irish Members had given Mr. Daly authority for what he said. I have stated positively, on my honour, that every Irish Member I was able to see declared the charge to be utterly groundless; and it is not very complimentary to us that my noble Friend should still seem to harbour a suspicion that it was our desire to have had an interview with him on the subject. I put it to the House whether my noble Friend—unless he placed implicit belief in the statement, which I do not think he will venture to assert—was justified in commissioning my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a charge implicating the honour and gentlemanly character of a certain portion of the Irish Members. I should be sorry to Bay that it was for the purpose of influencing votes on another question that my noble Friend desired that charge to be made. It is perfectly certain that it ma-

607
terially influenced the decision of a number of Members, especially on the Opposition side of the House, who, with the independent spirit of English gentlemen, would not in any way assist an attempt to coerce the Prime Minister by intimidation. Under these circumstances sixteen Members, who, had they voted, would have been more than sufficient to turn the division against the Government, and who were opposed to the repeal of the paper duty, left the House. If we had retorted upon the noble Lord the rumours which are going about that communications have passed between the Government and a number of Scottish and English Members who represent certain steamship interests, we should, to a certainty, have received from the noble Viscount not only an indignant repudiation of any such negotiations, but a severe censure for bringing forward a charge affecting the honour of the Government. And let me tell my noble Friend that the honour of the Irish Members is as dear to them as that of the Government can be to himself and his colleagues. On the part of the Irish Members I again declare that there is not the shadow of a foundation for the statement that they desired an interview with the noble Viscount on this question. I believe, from the communications I have had with them, that no one could so far forget his own character and position as to ask for an interview with my noble Friend under such circumstances. Indeed, such, I believe, is the opinion we all entertain of the noble Lord that we could not anticipate from his independent spirit anything but a refusal to such a request. We certainly never even dreamed of asking him to do anything of the sort. Yet we see in some of the public journals a daily renewal of the accusation, and an assertion that it has been proved to the satisfaction of a great majority of the public. In "another place," also, it has been asserted that we have yet to clear ourselves from the charge. The Rev. Mr. Daly has, in the moat distinct manner, both publicly and privately, denied that he pretended to the noble Viscount to have any authority from the Irish Members; and that the noble Lord must be much mistaken in his impression in that respect.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am sure that every one will do justice to the motives and feelings which have induced my hon. and gallant Friend to make the statement he has just made; which, indeed, I think was rendered unnecessary by
608
the disclaimer of my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Esrnonde), who on a former evening declared, on behalf of the Irish Members, that they gave no authority to Mr. Daly to submit to me any proposal or suggestion on their behalf. I am sure that every one will accept in the most unreserved manner the statements of my hon. and gallant Friend, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford; but in regard to what passed in the interview between Mr. Daly and myself, I abide entirely by what I said on a former evening. My noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs expressed the inference which he drew from the communication in writing which I made to him almost immediately after the interview with Mr. Daly had taken place; and I am bound to say that a similar impression was produced upon my mind at the time—because when Mr. Daly told me that the Irish Members should take some action in the matter, and that it was important they should know on Monday morning what was the decision of the Government in reference to the Galway Packet contract, in order that they might determine what course they were to take in the evening, I had no reason to suppose that he was not authorized to represent those on whose behalf he spoke. It is now quite clear he was not so authorized, and that with that zeal which has distinguished him upon other occasions he constituted himself as an authority for those for whom he was in no way empowered to appear. As to any further attempt to exculpate the Irish Members I believe that it is wholly unnecessary after the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure that every Member of the House will unhesitatingly accept the assertion of my hon. and gallant Friend; and, therefore, whatever blame may arise from any misunderstanding upon this subject must rest entirely with Mr. Daly, who, it seems, in his zeal for a cause in which it is only natural that he should be very zealous, gave me to understand that which, in point of fact, he was not authorized to convey. When I stated a few minutes since that I had no belief one way or the other, I was not in any way referring to my present conviction. I was merely setting my hon. and gallant Friend right as to what I believed at the moment when Mr. Daly had been in communication with me; and, as far as I had any belief at all at that time, I inferred that he was authorized to speak in the name of the Irish

609
Members; but I now find that I have no ground for drawing any such conclusion after the statement which has just been made by my lion, and gallant Friend.
LORD NAASsaid, he thought the statement now made by the noble Lord must be perfectly satisfactory to all the Gentlemen who are specially interested in the question, and whose conduct had been impugned. He must, however, express his regret that an explanation such as had been now given was not made earlier; and that at the interview between the noble Lord and Mr. Daly it did not occur to the noble Lord to ask the rev. gentleman on whose authority he had come, and whether he had any commission from any Member of this House to make a communication on the subject? He (Lord Naas) thought that would have been a very natural question for the noble Lord to put to a gentleman coming upon so important a mission, and it would naturally have tended to prevent those unpleasant remarks which had been made in that and in the other House of Parliament, as well as in the public press. He could not help further stating that he believed the impression which had prevailed upon that subject had materially affected a recent important division, and that many Members had been influenced upon that occasion by the connection which they supposed to exist between the Gal-way contract and the particular question at issue. But after the declaration of the noble Lord that matter might be taken to be wholly at an end. He regretted that so much undue prominence had been given to it, and that language had been used by very eminent individuals tending to corroborate the views which had been expressed in the public press. Without wishing to anticipate the discussion which must take place in reference to the Galway contract, he wished to take that opportunity of giving a very decided contradiction to some Statements he found published that morning in one of the leading journals. Those statements reflected to a very considerable extent on his personal character, and on the character of many Members of that and of the other House of Parliament who were his colleagues when that transaction took place. It was stated that the Galway contract had been given because a general election was at the time impending. That statement had been made and over again, and had over and over again been refuted. A Select Committee had inquired into the whole of that subject; the doors of that
610
Committee wore open for many months to any person who desired to give evidence before it; and yet the Committee was never told that an election was imminent at the period when the contract was granted. So far was it from being the truth that the contract was given with a view to n general election, that the document which finally closed the contract was signed by the Treasury on the 2nd of February, and the general election did not take place until the end of April. The two events could not have had any connection, for the Reform Bill, which led to the general election, had not been introduced at the time when the contract was signed; and no one could then have imagined that a general election would have taken place at so early a period. Again, it was said that this was au electioneering contract, and that the chairman of the Galway Packet Company had entered Parliament as a supporter of the Government of Lord Derby. But a more unfounded statement was never made. He had no doubt that the person thus referred to was the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Lever). But it so happened that that hon. Member had never been the chairman of the Company. The first chairman and the first vice-chairman of the Company were both at present Members of that House, but neither of them had ever been a supporter of Lord Derby's Government. The chairman was the hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. H. Lewis) and the vice chairman was a noble Lord (Lord Bury), who sat on the Treasury Bench, who held an office in Her Majesty's Household. I have also seen it stated that justice to Ireland did not require that the country should expend £72,000 a year for work which was not performed. But the terms of the contract expressly provided that no money should be paid until the contract was fulfilled, and it was impossible that a single shilling should be paid for services that were not actually rendered. He did not wish to anticipate the discussion which was to take place upon the Galway contract, but he had thought it right to take the very earliest opportunity of giving the fullest contradiction to these calumnies which had been often and often repeated and often and often confuted. Their confutation might not be as fresh in the recollection of the public as was the constant repetition of them; but wherever they were met they would necessarily be confuted, and he had only to add that he believed their perpetual

611
repetition could only serve to throw discredit on their authors.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he should not attempt to defend himself against the imputations made in the House and in some of the English papers, which had been made, because, independently of the Galway Packet Contract, no one would doubt that he should have voted against the abolition of the paper duty. But he protested against the assertion which was made by some portion of the press and by some Members of the House, that Irish Members were actuated by other motives than those which actuated English Gentlemen. It was said by an hon. Member who had spoken in this debate, that sixteen hon. Gentlemen had left the House before the division on the paper duty, because they suspected that force was being used by the Irish Members to induce the Government to reconsider the Galway contract. Now, after the statement that had just been made, he recommended those hon. Gentlemen to look for the future after their own honour, and to leave to the Irish Members to do the same duty to themselves. He thought they had quite enough to do to defend their own conduct without imputing misconduct to other people. It was the same with the press. The leading journal stated that seventy-five Irish Members voted against the Government for the sake of £72,000. Now the number was sixty-nine, and the assertion as to the influence under which they voted was untrue, for of the seventy-one who had voted, sixty-nine had voted in precisely the same way on the first division before the question of the Galway contract had been raised at all, and the others had not voted at all in the first division. An insinuation of corruption in this contract had been levelled against Lord Derby and Lord Eglinton. He was private secretary to Lord Eglinton at the time. He saw the communications which passed between Lord Derby and Lord Eglinton, and he could undertake to state that they proved that no contract was ever made with more caution. AH the friends of Ireland pressed the Government to do something to assist direct communication between Ireland and America. They conceived that they had a right to that assistance, and that if ever there was a case for a subsidy this was it. The country was a poor one, and had not the internal resources necessary for getting up a steam-packet company. It was said, why was not the service thrown open to competition? The
612
point was not overlooked by the Government of the day; but the answer was obvious that if they attempted open competition there would be no company at all—that the contract would be taken in England for the purpose of preventing it being carried out. It was impossible to have competing companies in Ireland, because they had not the wealth; and if an English company were admitted to tender, the contract would be taken for the purpose of not performing the service proposed; and thus by non-performance, preventing the establishment of any Irish packet station, which would be the real object of such a tender. He assured the noble Lord that if Ireland had a right to have direct communication with America, it could never be accomplished by any other means than by making a bargain without competition, either with a new company, or with this company resuscitated. The reason there was such a strong feeling in Ireland towards this company was scarcely understood in this House, but he would tell them that this was not a company in the ordinary sense of the term, or rather was not formed in the way in which companies were formed in this country. There were few large capitalists in Ireland, and in. England capitalists would not subscribe to it. But the sympathy of Ireland being enlisted in favour of the company, people of small means invested small sums in the undertaking. Their feelings were now roused by the consciousness that if the contract did hot go on they would lose their money. From the moment the present Government came into office, the Galway contract was used for the purpose of attacking Lord Derby, and they determined in one way or other, per fas et nefas, to break it. They began by the Chancellor of the Exchequer attacking it, and the Government granting a Committee to impeach its validity, and thus by their own acts they made it impossible for the company to perform the conditions into which they had entered. He did not impeach the conduct of the Postmaster General. There had been, no doubt, breaches of contract, but those breaches were caused by the acts of the present Government. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer held the subsidy in doubt for sixteen months was it any wonder that the company had failed in their engagements? Could any one suppose that a capitalist would subscribe to a speculation which depended on the decision of a Committee of the

613
House of Commons moved by a hostile Ministry? As to the accusation of corruption made against the Irish Members, he despised it. As to Mr. Daly, he had done a great deal for Galway; but to say that he had any authority to go in the name of the Irish Members and mate a bargain for them was too contemptible to notice. He then thought it possible that Mr. Daly, totally regardless and thoughtless of the impending division, went to procure an interview for some Irish Members. Whether he thought that the juncture would have any effect he could not tell, but at least this was certain, no one gave him any authority to speak in the name of the Irish Members. He protested against it being supposed that Irish Members acted differently from English Members; and as to the sixteen Members who were so chary of the honour of the Irish Members, as he had said before, they had quite enough to do to look after their own.
MR. GREGORY: I do not intend to make any observations whatever on the Galway contract—that is a matter which had better be discussed when we can enter into it more fully. But as my noble Friend the Member for Galway (Lord Dunkellin) is not in his place, and as I took a prominent part in the transactions which have called forth all these explanations, I wish to say a few words on the subject of the meeting which was called of Irish Members. There have been two charges thrown out—first, that we endeavoured to tamper with the Prime Minister, and by means of a threat to extort a promise from him; and secondly, that we endeavoured to make terms with the Opposition. As to the last, I utterly deny that there is a shadow of a foundation for it. My noble Friend opposite is aware that we never, either directly or indirectly, held the slightest communication with Gentlemen on the other side of the House. As to the endeavour by means of threats to extort concessions from the Minister, I give that an equally emphatic contradiction. If the subject was ever mentioned at that meeting it was solely for the purpose of repudiating such a course, not merely as derogatory to our own honour, but as the most unwise course which could be pursued to obtain the end in view. So chary were we at the meeting of taking any step which could give occasion for such an imputation that we determined not to go as a deputation to the Prime Minister, al-
614
though at that moment our constituents were most anxious to know how the case really stood. We determined that we would not go to the Prime Minister, lest our motives should be misconstructed. But not only that; so careful were we that in sailing this meeting we only addressed those Members who usually supported Her Majesty's Government, lest any course savouring of intimidation might be suspected. Had we for a moment imagined that the Government, however great the emergency, would submit to dictation of this kind, we must have known that the indignation which would be called forth would utterly overthrow the object which we had in view. When, therefore, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London came down to the House and said "better that a hundred Ministries should be overthrown, better that a hundred dissolutions should take place, rather than any Government should submit to such dictation," I think I may say that the noble Lord's indignation was utterly thrown away, if such indignation was not entirely simulated. It was nothing more nor less than an energetic battle with phantoms invoked for the occusion and for a purpose, in which purpose, I regret to say, the Minister succeeded. Allow me to add that, if we had not been influenced by the lower incentives of prudence, I trust that we should not be so forgetful of the position in which Irish Members stand as part and parcel of the whole Legislature, as to lend ourselves to such a proceeding. I entirely approve the abstract propriety of the sentiments of the noble Lord, because I know that no course is so calculated to bring the House of Commons into contempt and disrepute as to make it possible that its decision could be influenced by concessions or subsidies on the eve of a great emergency. I have seen the working of that system in another country. I have seen it in full blow in Canada, where majorities are obtained by expenditure for local purposes, or the Government is sustained by a grant to this or that municipality; and that is one of the principal causes of the Legislature of Canada having been brought into discredit. I can only say for myself, that last Session I voted against the third reading of the Paper Duties Repeal Bill for reasons into which I am not going to enter now, and that in the present Session I refrained from voting. Although I was most anxious not to sacrifice a large amount of revenue, I was at the same time most

615
auxious not to be instrumental in producing a Ministerial crisis. But when the Government did, in a harsh and unnecessary manner, close a contract which was not the affair of a locality, or of a company, but of a nation, I voted against that Government. I thought the vote perfectly consistent with my previous conduct, and I considered the vote which I then gave as a vote of want of confidence. I conceive that although the vote was on "paper," we had a perfect right to express our confidence or want of confidence in the Government, and that such a course was justified by Parliamentary precedents. In 1846, the majority by which Sir Robert Peel was thrown out was upon a Coercion Bill. That was the issue before the House; but the cause of Sir Robert Peel's Government being upset was not the merits of the Coercion bill, but because he had forfeited the confidence of his followers by his conduct in regard to the Corn Laws. Again, in 1857, a vote of want of confidence, which drove the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government from office, was taken upon the question of a Conspiracy Bill. It was not any difference of opinion as to the right of the French Emperor to protection against assassination, but private piques, small ambitions, and sectional jealousies, which drove the noble Lord from office in 1857; and the vote on that occasion had as much reference to assassination as our vote had the other night to paper. When gross imputations are being cast upon Irish Members, I wish some Members would look at home. It was only yesterday that a Liverpool paper was put into my hands containing a letter addressed to the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Hors-fall), in which he was appealed to to vote for the Government in spite of his position in this House as a Member of the Opposition, and he was told that the issue was not paper—the question was Liverpool or Galway. He was told that, not only was it a steam-packet question, but a question for the whole shipping interest, and that he would be called to account for any vote which might give sanction to an opposition inconsistent with the interests of the town which he claimed to represent. The appeal is put in the broadest manner—"Liverpool or Galway—Galway or Liverpool—for which will you vote?" I know the Member for Liverpool to be the last man to be influenced by any appeal against what he considered to be just and right; but I quote the Liverpool papers to show
616
how readily in England the attempt is made to force Members of Parliament to be guided by local interests rather than by the merits of the case submitted to them. When all these stories are being told of the pressure put by Irish Members on the Government, it is fair to mention that other stories affecting Members of a sister country are afloat. There was a story about town that a deputation of Scotch Members waited on the Prime Minister, previous to the late division, to indurate the inflexibility of the noble Lord with regard to the Galway contract, and threatening him with defection should he make any concession to Irish Members. I never for one moment believed that rumour, and I only said and claim for ourselves that same charity which we extend to others.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I do not rise to discuss the question, of the Galway contract. I think the hon. Member who last spoke has exercised a very wise discretion in abstaining from that discussion. Neither shall I make any remark for the purpose of controverting his right to express by his vote his want of confidence in Her Majesty's present Government. I rise merely because the hon. Gentleman in the course of his remarks stated that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs exhibited "simulated indignation" upon a recent occasion, and appeared rather to intimate that my noble Friend used undue means for the purpose of influencing the votes of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I wish to call attention to what took place on that occasion. Early in the evening questions had been addressed to my noble Friend at the head of the Government with respect to negotiations on the subject of the Galway contract. My noble Friend was unable to state anything more than that a communication had been recently addressed to the Postmaster General on the part of the contractors; that that communication was under consideration; and that an answer would shortly he given to it. My noble Friend did not state what answer would be given, because it was impossible for him to do so; and, therefore, he may have been understood to have left the House in uncertainty as to what answer would be given and as to whether negotiations with this company would not be opened. It must also be in the recollection of the House that a statement was made by a widely circulated newspaper on that morn-

617
ing, that the Government had made a bargain with the Galway Company, the details of which were mentioned and specified. I believe, myself, from what came to my knowledge, that an impression prevailed in this House most derogatory, as it seemed to me, to the honour of Members of Her Majesty's Government, that negotiations were going on with the Galway Company, and that it was sought to purchase the support of Irish Members by concession on that subject. As reports had been circulated in London to that effect, and in the House to my knowledge, after my noble Friend gave his answer to the questions, it became absolutely necessary that my noble Friend the Secretary of State should give a distinct denial to the truth of those reports. I can only speak as to my own feelings. I conceived my honour personally implicated in a distinct denial being at that moment given to what I considered most injurious reports which were then in circulation, and I confess I never heard any statement with greater pleasure than I heard the declaration of my noble Friend, which put an end to all uncertainty upon the subject. So far from the indignation being simulated or resorted to as an unfair contrivance for the purpose of influencing votes, my noble Friend took a course which he was actually forced to take by the state of belief in the House, and he did not in the smallest degree exceed the bounds which were his strict duty, and which were incumbent on him as a man of truth and honour.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he had no wish to prolong this discussion, but his attention had been drawn to the statement in The Times newspaper, that it was incumbent on the Irish Members to clear up the matter. So strongly had he felt this imputation that it had been his intention, but for the notice of the hon. Member for Roscommon, to call the attention of the House to the matter as a breach of privilege. It was an old French proverb that Qui s'excuse s'accuse; and, therefore, he felt extremely indignant that the noble Lord should have said he was glad the Irish Members had exculpated themselves.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Allow me to interrupt the hon. Member, for the purpose of preventing my being misunderstood. What I said about "exculpated" was as to the Irish Members having authorized Mr. Daly to introduce a deputation.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYwas happy to find the objectionable word either explained or retracted. It was said that the indignation of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was induced by the prevalence of certain reports. Who put those reports in circulation? They were circulated by an organ of the Government, The Times newspaper, and not by the Irish Members. The purpose was to gain votes, and they did gain votes by rousing a natural feeling of indignation among English and Scotch Members. It was the Government who required to be exculpated from lending themselves to such slanders on the Irish Members. He found he had used an expression to which he ought perhaps to except, because he objected to their being called Irish Members. They were as much the representatives of the whole country as the Scotch or English Members. No one was more entirely free from these imputations than himself. He had expressed no opinion in the House, cither on the paper duties or on the Galway contract. His opinion on the Galway contract was very well known out of doors. He did not think Galway the best of Irish ports, but that the contract had been useful in bringing the steamers to Cork. If one of the 105 Irish Members was liable to imputations, it was the habit to take the one black sheep as the type of the whole flock; but if the English had a black sheep they drove it out of the flock remorselessly. He thought the noble Lord might have easily ascertained whether Mr. Daly had any authority or not; but it seems to have suited him better to remain in a state of blissful ignorance. And then, when called upon for an explanation, his conduct towards the Irish Members had been characterized by so much finesse, and he gave such unintelligible answers that it was necessary to put up the next in command to explain. He did not, however, intend to insinuate that any Member of the Government wrote-the article in question. He was not fond of going upon deputations, but he had once accompanied a deputation to the noble Lord, as to Cork Harbour, because it was less trouble than to give an explanation to his constituents why he had absented himself; and upon that occasion he told the noble Lord he did not think any good would be derived from the deputation except the pleasure he must always feel in paying his Lordship a morning visit. The noble Lord was very facetious in his description

619
of the interview with Father Daly. He knew less of Father Daly than either the noble Lord or the leader of the Opposition; but upon one occasion he had seen Father Daly in conversation with some hon. Members outside. One of them said, "I hear you had a very satisfactory interview with the Premier." "Yes," said Father Daly, "very satisfactory indeed, and, therefore, I ask all you Gentlemen to go at once and vote against him." "Was he civil to you?" was the next question. "Oh yes" said Father Daly, "all great men in eminent positions are civil and courteous; he was exceedingly civil, and I have nothing to complain of in that respect." Thinking to take a rise out of the poor parish priest, the Gentleman said, "Have you been to any of his Lordship's 'evenings at home?'" but Father Daly was ready with his answer—"No, Sir, I don't care for high society at all; I would just as soon sit at the board of an humble man like yourself." He himself had had an interview in the lobby—it was with a Member of the House connected with the Government, and he would not look round the House lest he should see him in his place—who said, "Surely, you will not lend yourself to this dirty work?" He replied, "I was born an Irish gentleman, as you were born an English gentleman; and I do not understand expressions of that kind being addressed to me." The Member said, "You Irish are very hot; you take in earnest what is meant in joke." He answered, "No Irish gentleman would use such expressions either in jest or in earnest."
THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he had attended the meeting alluded to, firmly convinced that those who went to it would vote against the Government on the same evening. So far from thinking that course derogatory, he believed it was the one which it was their duty to take, and which was in accordance with the wish of their constituents. He put it to Irish Members whether it was not the course their constituents wished them to take, irrespective of any considerations as to tea or paper? There seemed to be an attempt made to bind Members to vote on abstract considerations without reference to any other considerations. For himself, he did not mean to be bound by such a rule, nor did he think it was one which had before been recognized and acted upon in the House. He had no doubt that his vote
620
on the occasion in question was influenced by the conduct of the Government on the Galway contract, and that it would, on future occasions, be equally influenced if similar circumstances arose. He trusted that some pressure would yet be brought to bear upon the Government in reference to that contract.

CAPTAINS ON THE RESERVED LIST.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE, in rising to bring the claims of the Captains on the Reserved List under the notice of the House, said it was quite understood by these officers when they were placed on the Reserved (not on the Retired List) that they were to be on the same footing as officers on the Active List, in regard to rank, seniority, and the Greenwich out-pensions, the difference being that they were not to expect active employment unless in case of war. It was most important that good faith should be kept with naval officers by the Admiralty. He could not do justice to the list, but the services of these captains averaged an active service of thirty-five years each. The advantage they had obtained by the minute had been 6d. a day. They had protested against the treatment they had received, and a certain number last year obtained an increase of pay. But so far as he could learn they would not have their flags and seniority and their Greenwich out-pensions as captains. As the hour was now so late (half-past five) he must content himself with moving the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the Captains of the Royal Navy, who were placed on a Reserved as distinguished from a Retired List, on account of their having served long and well, in accordance with the Orders in Council, of the 25th day of June, 1851, and the 30th day of January, 1856, have great reason to complain, that the arrangement entered into with the Board of Admiralty has not been fairly carried out; and that the injustice with which these Officers have been treated is most prejudicial to the Public Service,'"—instead thereof.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTseconded the Amendment. He must do the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) who drew the minute the justice to say he was under the impression he had excluded these officers from the advantages they now claimed,

  621
  and which they believed, when they accepted the Order in Council, they were to enjoy. There was, however, an ambiguity in the Order in Council that entitled to the generous consideration of the House officers who had served their country faithfully and in posts of great responsibility during a long war.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he quite concurred with the gallant Admiral in his assertion that these captains were a body of able and excellent officers many of whom had served their country with distinction. He greatly regretted the misunderstanding under which these officers laboured as to their position as officers on the reserved list; he must, however, fall back on what was done by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring), who was First Lord of the Admiralty when the Order in Council was issued in 1851. That Order was made in the interest of a certain number of commanders who had no prospect of employment or promotion, and to whom an offer was made that they should be promoted to this reserved list. Whether these officers thought at the time they were to rise pari passu with officers on the active list was a matter on which he could offer no opinion. The Admiralty of that day, however, and every successive Board of Admiralty considered that it was the bonâ fide intention of the Admiralty that these officers should not rise pari passu with officers on the active list. This distinctly appeared from the rates of half-pay published in the Navy List. The Admiralty, however, deeming that the Order in Council was considered by these officers as rather ambiguously worded, had, by an Order in Council, last year allowed these officers to count their sea-time both as lieutenants and mates. The effect of this order had been so favourable to them that their grievance was now more imaginary than real. Very few had arrived at that point in the Navy List where they would be entitled to an increase of pay; so that if the majority of them were on the active list they would only be in the lowest class, and in the receipt of 10s. 6d. per diem. Out of ninety-nine of these officers seventy-seven were receiving an increase of pay in consequence of their services under the Order in Council of last year. [Mr. COCHRANE: But they will not rise to the rank of Admiral.] That was true, but was the House prepared to increase the Admirals' list to this extent? He did not see on what principle the Admiralty could
  622
  grant to officers on a reserved list—who were not liable to serve—the same position as officers on the active list. The case of these officers had been so often under the consideration of the House that it might now be considered as exhausted. Considering the boon recently granted to them he did not think these officers had any real grievance to complain of.
  MAJOR EDWARDSwas sorry to hear the noble Lord state that this question was exhausted. Many of these officers had been in action, and had distinguished themselves before some of the members of the present Board of Admiralty were born. He had been assured, and had no reason to doubt the statement, that when these officers accepted a position on the reserved list they expected they were to rise to their flags. The case was one which the Admiralty ought to take into their favourable consideration, for the claim of the officers was only just and proper.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 19: Majority 8.
  Main Question, put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Question, again proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £469,835, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of New Works, Improvements, and Repairs in the Naval Establishments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1862."
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he had given notice of his intention to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £3,225, proposed for additional accommodation for spinning machinery at Chatham; but it depended upon the explanation which the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty gave on the subject whether he would persevere with the Motion.
MR. WHITBREADhoped the hon, and gallant Gentleman would not persist in his Motion, as the question of the enlargement of Chatham Dockyard was to be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) stated the other night that the Vote for the extension of

623
works at Chatham pledged the Government to an ultimate outlay of £1,000,000. A Vote of so much importance ought not, therefore, to be taken so late in the afternoon; and moreover, if the whole question was to be considered by a Committee the decision of that Committee ought not to be anticipated.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that it was in the opinion of the Government very advantageous that the extensions at Chatham should be referred to a Committee upstairs; and the particular Vote to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would be conditional on the report of the Committee.
MR. HENLEYcould not see how, if the money were given hard and fast, it could be conditional on the Report of the Committee. It would be better to move for the money in a Supplementary Estimate if the Committee reported in favour of Chatham.
MR. WHITBREADsaid, that the Vote now asked was in continuation of Votes granted for several years, in order to continue the great work of (ho embankment of St. Mary's Island.
MR. HENNESSYmoved that the Chairman Report Progress.
MR. HENLEYsuggested that the Vote should be struck out.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the extension of works at Chatham would be referred to a Committee. This was a Vote entirely independent of that question.
House resumed; Committee report Progress: to sit again To-morrow.
House adjourned at Ten minutes before Six o'clock.