The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-28 00:00:00

vernment ; and both his colleagues and himself should be
ashamed of themselves if they were to be acquitted of all
blame, and the consequences visited on Mr. Churchward
alone. Had the inquiry been conducted before a legal tri-
bunal, leading questions, such as the hon. member had put,
would never have been tolerated. He would again repeat
that he should feel thoroughly ashamed of himself if it
could be supposed that ho was prepared to ride off on the
sort of acquittance accorded by the report of the committee,
while Mr. Churchward, the contractor, innocent of every-
thing that could be impeached, was allowed to be a heavy
sufferer. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LAING, as one of the majority of the committee who
had decided ;a favour of the report which had been published,
desired to offer a few observations to the house. He should
rest `us decision entirely upon the question whether or not
any corral,
-4 influence had attempted to be used by the "
con-
tractor when se. Acing the renewal of the contract. 'Were he,
the consideration whether or not the
one for the country, he might
however, to base it on
bargain was an advantagea;!'
He believed, for
have much to say in oppositie'n to the view taken by the
honourable baronet who had just tipple:on.
the reasons set forth in the report of the Pos:-office autho-
rities, that the transaction was not upon the whole 0110 for
the good of the country. Where the case was such that it
was morally certain, either from the vastness of the under-
taking or other circumstances, that a variety of competitors
would not appear in the field, it might be better, un-
doubtedly, that the Government should eloso at once with
an individual. But that was not the case with the pover
line ; for it was perfectly possible for a great variety of per-
sons -to have competed for the contract—in fact, any one
with five or six steamers could have done so. •And, more-
over, it was notorious that, as regarded the railways, there
were elements of competition entering in these of which the
public ought to lui,ve taken advantage. It certainly, there-
fore was unwise to tie up the hands of the country by so
influenced an execution of the contract. However, all such
considerations appeared to him to be beside the question.
The simple point with him was, had corrupt motives
heightened the execution of the contract. The hon. baronet
had found fault with the report of the committee. Now,
he was astonished that a gentleman of such acuteness was
unable to see the distinction between a verdict of acquittal
as regarded B the acceptor of aftill, and a verdict of guilty
as against A, the offerer of a bill. There was no assertion
that the contract had been obtained by the exercise of cor-
rupt influence, but there was a distinct assertion by a great
majority of the committee, and not consisting of one political
party, that Mr. Churchward did attempt to exercise cor-
rupt influence, in the hope of thereby obtaining the con-
tract. The question was not in the slightest degree one of
law, for undoubtedly the House of Commons had this power
of rejecting the renewal of the contract by refusing to vote
for the money. It should also be home in mind that
Churchward was a person whose antecedents were not
satisfactory—who had been reported to the HOWE of
Commons on a former occasion as having* been
guilty of attempting to bribe certain electors as a
political agent. Nor could they sbut their eyes to the
fact of the communications between Churchward and the
Admiralty on the subject of the Dover election. A select
committee had since then sat on the Dover election, and
had made their report to the house; that report was not
printed, and he (Mr. Laing) was therefore obliged to quote
from the newspapers. He proceedei to read a passage from
the report in question, when—
Lord LOVAINE rose to order, End put it to the Speaker
whether the hon. member was just fed in quoting the report
of a committee not before house.
The SPEAKER decided to bon. member was not in
order.
Mr. LAING said the point was immaterial, except for
the sake of argument. His genefal impression, however,
was that the report threw a remarkable light on the con-
nection of Churchward with the Dover election through the
agents employed.
Mr. LYGON rose to order. To refer to a report not be-
tore the house was not in order. •
The SPEAKER decided slat the hon. member was
again out of order.
Mi. LAING said the report of the committee had been
laid on the table, though it hainot yet been printed ; but he
did not wish to pursue the suiject further than to say that
the report was referred to by he hon. and gallant member,
who made the motion, and that if he (Mr. Laing) was out
of order, he only followed this hon. gallant member. But
, taking the case as it stood the question was narrowed down
, to the single issue—whether Captain Carnegie's evidence
was to be believed or rejectee? If it was to be rejected, then
there was an end of the business. If, however, it was to be
believed, then no man of sew could doubt fora single moment
that Mr. Churchward attempted, by means of a political
bribe, to obtain front the Admiralty a renewal of his con-
tract. That being the case then came the question, was an
attempt a sufficiext justification for the House of
Commons to puf an end to the contract in
question by refuting to vote the money for it ? The
introduction of the words in the contract making it
dependent on tie vote of the House of Commons, was a
great novelty is contracts ; but it was plain, from the state-
ments of the .nembers of the Government who had made
that contract that these words were not mere idle verbiage,
, but had a ddiaite purpose and specific meaning. Under
, the words 4f the contract they were at perfect liberty to re-
fuse they/Le. It was of the highest consequence, moreover,
that the' should support the decision of their own select
commitee, whose conclusion was strictly based on evidence,
and threfore he hoped they would not agree to the reso-
lutior.
M. MALINS said the house was not in possession of all
theacts of the case, which was to be regretted, as the deci-
sia would be of a judicial character. Before the year 1854
M-. Churchward had been connected with the public press
a naval affairs, and had acquired a considerable knowledge
of those matters. At that time the packet service from Dover
to Calais was costing the country £25,000 a-year ; and Mr.
Churchward suggested that this service should be performed
liy tender, and not by Government boats. This was agreed
to. The Government advertised for tenders, and Mr. Church-
ward and a Captain Jenkins tendered to perform the service
for £15,500, which tender was accepted, and a contract was
accordingly signed on the Ist April, 1354. The right hon.
baronet the member for Carlisle was then at the head of the
Admiralty, and a Liberal Government was in power. That
went on until 1855, to the satisfaction of the Government,
when Mr. Churchward—who, with the knowledge of the
Government had entered into an arrangement with the
French Government to bring over the French mails in
his packets instead of returning empty—applied for and re-
ceived a renewal of his contract to 1863, on the ground that
he had been at considerable expense, and had suffered the
loss of one of his vessels. That contract was on the same
terms as the former, with some collateral advantages. The
right hon. baronet the member for Halifax was then First
Lord of the Admiralty. After that came the Crimean war
1 and the Indian mutiny, and the arrival of the Indian snail
being very irregular, Mr. Churchward put himself to great
exuense to have a steamer in readiness when the mail ar-
rived. In consequence of this, and his having suggested
great improvements in the postal service, the Government
of Lord Derby increased the term of contract. It would be
admitted that the Government of Lord Derby was in no
danger until the middle of March, 1859, when the noble
lord opposite proposed his resolution. The course of
circumstances connected with the contract appeared to
be this. On the 6th January, 1859, Mr. Church-
ward, being at that time in possession of a contract which
was to last till 1863, first mooted the question of its
renewal. On the 11th of February he was invited by the
Admiralty to make a formal offer of the terms which he pro-
posed. In compliance with that invitation he made an
offer, proposing that his remuneration should be £lB,OOO a
year instead of £15,500 a year and casualties, as under the
old contract, the casualties amounting usually to about
£2,500, On the 23d of February that offer was formally
accepted and adopted by the Admiralty, and all that. then
remained was for the Treasury to put it into shape. That
was a mere matter of machinery, and for all practical pur-
poses the contract was completed on the 23d of February,
On the 26th of April, however, the contract was positively
executed—" signed, sealed, and delivered'', by the Treasury
—and under it Mr. Churchward was to receive £lB,OOO a
year, and the contract was to endure till 1870. On the faith
of that contract Mr. Churchward had expended £16,000
upon two new steamers to enable him to perform his part
of the undertaking, and it had been so far recognised by the ,
present Government that on the lst of July, when the first
quarter's subsidy became due, they handed over to him the
sum of £4,500. The contract having been thus entered
itto, it was now said that it was to be set aside on account
of a conversation which was alleged to have taken place
with Capt. Carnegie on the. 2d April. A more ridiculous
ground for repudiating a contract he had never heard. He
appealed to the justice of the noble lord, and of the house,
not to sanction the repudiation of a contract solemnly en-
tered into by a public.department on the ground of mere
gossip, said 'to have taken place in the room of a private
secretary.

I -
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he could not agree
with the propositions which his hon. and learned friend op-
posite had laid down with regard to the law of this case. He
admitted the correctness of the dates given by his hon. and
;earned friend, but he demurred to the conclusion which he
eot contract t
Churchwardiad drawn from them. It appeared that early in 1859 Mr.
ptrhoopno s eedx i
st
toi
ntgla, eand tAdmiraltyhe
substitutionthe abrogationo
one
the
eh was to continue till 1870. The Admiralty approved
l. n
so far of the proposal, at
of forth,
the contractforwardedit to the
weTars not signed
bu
and sbut
He was
iap oint
f
disposed to rely on the absence of any
atbindingthle that
it
acceptanceeimd'e
of the contract on the part of the Trea-
sury. Mr. Churchward was a man not inexperienced in
contracts, and must haveknewn the importance of the want
of the ratification by the Treasury. However Mr. Church-
ward might exaggerate the advantages of the contract to
himself, that of itself would not negative the fact found by
theicomMittec, that Mr.Churchward had attempted to obtain
et n
periodical
an advantage to himself by means that were corrupt. For-
innately for the interests of public, justice and political
morality, there was in this contract so corruptly obtainedofe
f which itli hll
sritiepnuldahtiaodn,sotuhgehimt
tpooretvaadncee ° ,
to
payjnents to Mr. Churchward were to be made out of
theffecthat°;h : d learned
moneys to be voted by Parliament. No complaint, there.
fore could with justice be made by Mr. Churchward, if the
house should refuse to vote the fund out of which payments
wei4 to be made to him. It followed, from the terms of