The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-29 00:00:00

cerned, this statement would exonerate them from blame.
He wished also to exonerate his predecessor from those
charges which had been freely circulated upon this
matter. When he acceded to office he had been indebted
to the Right Hon. Gentleman for that confidential com-
munication which it was necessary to give when a
change of Government took place. The Right Hon.
Gentleman had called his attention to what arrears of
bwinese there were in the office. and when he in his
turn should hand it over to another he hop, el there
would be as few arrears as he then eeued. The Right
lion. Gentleman banded over to him the duties of an
office which up to that period had been discharged in a
most efficient manner. This subject among others had
of course been alluded to, but with reference to it his
judgment bad been perfectly unshackled.—(Bear, hear.)
Mr. H. BERKELEY observed that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, he having given the contract to the Pe-
ninsular and Oriental Company, had completely thrown
overboard the labours of the Committee.
Sir C. WOOD said he was surprised to find in the
report of the Eastern Steam Navigation Company
(whose mouthpiece the Noble Lord the Member fur
Lynn had made himself that evening) that he was
charged with having cordially concurred in the recom-
mend-L.6°n of the Committee that the service should be
necesvarily given to two companies, and afterwards
with hiving turned round and decided aggiest the
Eastern Steam Navigatio❑ Company. Both these state-
ments were utterly without foundation. Every one
knew the meaning ordinarily attached to the word
" competition," but the competition which the Noble
Lord sought for way, that, at whatever price, there
should he two companies to carry out the contract.
But what an ()peeing that afforded to jobbing and all
kinds of unfair practices? Why, if he were to give one
portion of the service to one company and another to
another, without any competition for the same, there
would be no limit to the favour, monopoly, and jobbing
that might result from it.—(Hear.) The accusation of
the Noble Lord was-against him personally, that he had
given a decision contrary to his opinion.—(" Hear, hear"
from Lord Jocelyn.) The ground on which that charge
had been made against him was totally without foun-
dation, and, grateful as he was to the Noble Lord for
having brought this subject forward, and for his courtesy
in having apprised him by letter of his intention to do
so, he thought that his courtesy would have been better
applied, and his justice too, if before he had made the
charge, he had taken the trouble to inquire whether
there was any foundation for it. He thought the present
Government had decided perfectly right, for the question
did not admit of the slightest doubt. The Eastern Steam
Company had asked 160,0001. for three lines, while the
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Company had contracted
for less than 200,0001 for all the five lines. If he had
been actuated by any unworthy motives, as the Noble
Lord had insinuated—[Lord JOCELYN—" I never insi-
nuated anything of the kind]—he would have acted as
he had done. The Government were bound, certainly,
to take the most advantageous contract, but the lowest
was not always the most advantageous. He warned the
House against being led away by contracts of the kind
referred to. Last year he received no less than seven
private applications from the Eastern Steam Navigation
Company to enter into the contract with them, but he
had refused to entertain them; and he again warned the
House not to sanction a course of conduct which opened
the door to an amount of jobbing and corruption never
before heard of.—(Hear.)
Lord JOCELYN—I wish to call it to the recollection
of the House that I distinctly stated I did not attribute
any unworthy motives to the Right Hon. Gentleman.
Mr. COWPER, defended the Admiralty, and thought
it exceedingly unfair to say a company did not tender
for the whole of the service because they made a differ- I
epee of 73 miles on the whole voyage. The Noble Lord
was more influenced than he was aware of by the state- '
ments of the company which had not gained the con-
tract. It was natural that directors should endeavour to I

throw the blame the shareholders would fix upon them
for not making tenders which could be accepted on other
shoulders than:their own, but in their report the direc-
tors of the Eastern Steam Company had done more than
any company was entitled to do, for they had not only
misrepresented figures, but had stated what was abso-
lutely untre. The decision of the Admiralty was shown
to be correct, and he was glad that her Majesty's Go-
vernment supported the result at which the Treasury
and Admiralty of the late Government had, after the
fullest invdstigation, arrived.

Mr. WILT:COX observed, that the Noble Viscount
was mistaken in supposing that the Peninsular and
Oriental Steam Company had not included Culcutta in
the service for which they made the contracts.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER said, that had the ten-
der made by the Eastern Steam Navigation Company
been accepted, it was the intention Of that company to
have made arrangemente, if possible, for landing their
mails at Plymouth, instead of at Southampton • and he
felt that the time was come when it was the duty of the
Government itself to take into consideration the claim of
Plymouth to be a point of departure for the mail service
with our colonial and foreign dependencies.—(Hear,
hear) The facilities of that port for such a purpose
were, at the very least, equal to those of any other, in
some material respects superior. Mails landed there
from the east would be distributed not merely through-
out the western districts of England, but also through
the manufacturing districts, much earlier than if they
were landed at Southampton. He was satisfied, indeed
that the preeent arrangements would have long since
been altered but for the want of a complete railway
communication between Plymouth and London. That
complete communication was now effected; the tele-
graph between the two points would also be completed
before long, and works now in rapid progress at Ply-
mouth would render that port in every way eligible, and
in the Lighest degree, for the purpose in question, to
which purpose he trusted the Government would not
then delay to apply it.
Lord S f ANLEY said that the two principles on
which contracts were adopted were, first, that of taking
the lowest tender, irrespective of all other considerations,
and, secondly, that of taking the tender most likely to
be of best service, irrespective of its being the cheapest.
The tender of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam-packet
Company fulfilled both these conditions, being 25 per
cent, cheaper than the other tenders, and, the manner of
its service not being surpassed by that of any other
that tender had, conse-
quently,bteamnavigation
b
hear.) The Cunard steamers were perhaps somewhat
iegeantio
andeonpmtepdany the Government.—(Hear,
14
more rapid in their course, but these steamers had only a
single voyage of 3,400 miles to_cf:a coal for, whereas the
steamers of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam-packet
Company performed the double voyage from Calcutta to
Suez, and back, almost entirely with coals laid in at the
former port, and where therefore much heavier weighed
than the Cunard steamers. _

The subject then dropped.,
COLONEL OUTRAN.
Mr. ANSTEY said he would, in order to give way to
his Hon. Friend (Hr. Horsman), postpone his motion
respecting Colonel Outram till a future day. He must
express, in so doing, his conviction that the directors
were resolved not to produce the documents for which
he had moved. On the next Supply night he would
press his motion to a division.
Mr. HER MES (who was imperfectly heard in the
gallery) said, he was confident that when the subject
came to be fully investigated, the Court of Directors
would be fully exonerated from the strictures passed
upon them by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
THE REV. MR. BENNETT.
Mr. HORS MAN called the attention of the House to
the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
as to the result of the Government inquiry into the case
of Frome. The Hon. Member proceeded to say, that
he wished to call the attention of the House to the law
of the case. He would remind the House, that the in•
quiry he had moved for was an inquiry into the conduct
of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, in instituting Mr.
Bennett. -The Government undertook the inquiry, and
they stated that the complainant had a remedy under
the Church Discipline Act. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) gave an answer
on one point—the case of a clerk, but not on the other
point, as to whether there was any redress in the case
of a bishop. He would take the case of the offending
clerk under the Church Discipline Act, and they
were told be could be proceeded against either
in the diocese in which he held the preferment, or
in the one in which he committed the offence.
The parties to whom the matter would be referred
under that Act would be appointed by the bishop him-
self, and if they said there was no ground for inquiry,
there the matter terminated. The inquiry could not
take place in the diocese of London, as it must be in.
stituted within two years after the offence charged had
been committed. The parties who complained stated
that one bishop had been applied to about Mr. Bennett's
adherence to the Roman Catholic doctrines, and he was
therefore called on to give in his resignation. There
was then the further difficulty that the Bishop of Lon-
don had accepted his resignation, and he could not,
therefore, be brought before him again. But there was
another thing, the offence that was committed abroad
could not be brought under the cognizance of the Church
Discipline Act. It was, therefore, obvious that the re-
dress under the Church Discipline Act was a nominal
one. But that was no portion of the inquiry that he
(Mr. Hursmen) had asked for. When he understood
that the bishop was the party to be blamed it was
against him that he complained. He was told there
was an application to the archbishop, and when he in-
quired how that was to be made the Right Honourable
Gentleman declined to answer the question. He
then asked 'him what redress he had, and an
answer to that question was also declined. He next
asked to see opinions of the law officers of the Crown,
and the Right Hon. Gentleman declined to ,give that
also. He woald now state to the House what tho law was
there woritshenio3ilsehgoapl
on the subject. As regarded the bishop who instituted
aofperson to a living, though he were avowedly a member
under the Churcr
went
totther Church—even if Cardinal Wiseman himself
stated, the redress w
tandrin
uhnealinbs teiftnurtee dwhkinmm—(
theyA lcanuueldh )g—o
the bishop, there was for redress.—(Hear.) Then as regarded the clergyman
Discipline Act, as he had already
rekwas no redress whatever.—
(Hear.) nominal one; but, as re-
garded((tHheeaAr.)reorney-General)atso the Right Hon. Gentleman
say anything upon the law,
eloquent,er enough; but he (Mr.
*cul disagree with him
His silenceH ewdouidli not
et
Hon,ruen) knew that no lawyer
on that subject. If there was anyon redress, many gentle-
therefore it was
The case
V7h
eo ulh
addnot
madeagree e tost
ahtiesmme
no
tti
e, and
given.
n the same
had
al, when he made
mtbhecainnt being as he had stated, and the House being
condition it was in on theg2nOtthitofneAnsrsi
givebring the
on
n
his motion, he had thou
statement he had made, his intention hernygtoto
his motion on the 7th of June..

Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, if it had not
been the intention of the Hon. Member to raise a dis-
u Inight have nixstaincri from saying what ha
aki not confined himself to the law of
done.
H h
and thoug-li ha.satti he did nut wish to provoke.
ctbha se,is i he
case,
disoussien, done a good deal toward§.l3, The.